How do viruses pack more information into the same sized genome?

  • 49 Replies
  • 21114 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
I was absolutely gobsmacked to read this:

"However, a few years ago a surprising discovery was made by a group of biochemists at Cambridge University. While working on the DNA of a small virus, they discovered that it contained more information than could be accounted for if the genes were arranged in a linear array of discrete sequences.

For some time this discrepancy was very puzzling and the explanation, when it came, astonished the biological world.

After the exact sequence of the DNA of the virus had been worked out, the discovery was made that in certain regions two genes were embedded together in the same sequence, that is to say, they overlapped.

When two genes overlap in the same sequence the information for both encoded proteins is contained in one DNA sequence in the same way as one sequence of symbols in morse code can contain information for 2 words and be read in 2 different ways.

M... A... N... A
_ _ . _ _ . . _ . . .
....... M . I . N.. I

[I've had to insert spacing dots between the letters to keep them in the right places relative to the code.]

Thus the discrepancy between the coding potential and the number of proteins synthesized was explained by a mechanism of wonderful ingenuity...."

"Another compacting device, which has been shown to be utilised in living systems and which again has no strict analogy in our own technology, is the use of breakdown products of proteins to perform all sorts of functions often quite unrelated to the original function of the 'mother protein.

Thus many protein functions are compacted into an original molecule.

The process begins by the synthesis of the original protein which, after performing its function, is broken down in the cell into two smaller proteins, each of which perform two further functions. These two new proteins are again broken down into still smaller proteins capable of yet further functions.

The device is somewhat analogous to having a whole tol kit compacted within the first tool we require to initiate a particular operation, and when the initial operation is complete. the tool breaks down into the next two tools required for the operation, and so on until the operation is complete."

There is no conceivable way that these devices could have a chance origin, and divine construction is really the only satisfactory explanation.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2008 21:11:58 by Asyncritus »
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
All very interesting, until the last line, where it fell apart into nonsense.  There can be no sensible debate between evolution and intelligent design.  You are trying to use a philosophy to tell us that science is wrong.  I don't subscribe to your philosophy.

*

Offline Evie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 200
  • "Back off man...I'm a Scientist."
    • View Profile
    • My Website
Indeed, Ben.

Once again, this comes down simply to the fact that some of us feel it is perfectly reasonable that nature can produce such elegant mechanisms and others feel that there needs to be some sort of intelligent force behind it.

Either way, I think wonderful discoveries like this can allow persons of either persuasion to marvel at the beautiful and intricate world we live in, strengthening our faith or our respect for nature.
====================================================
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Hamlet
Act I, scene 5

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
I did ask Asyncritus in a previous thread to account for the appearance of new viruses, (SARS AIDS, H571, etc), without mutation/evolution.

He is now telling us that God creates viruses.
So God has designed divinely perfect cell replication machinery only to create perfect viral spanners to throw in the works.

Surely this is a contradiction in terms: if all cells were "carefully and competently designed" then none could be parasitized by virus,
if viruses were also "carefully and competently designed" then why aren't all cells hosts to virus ?.

The answer is genetic variation in cells and viruses caused by random mutations, i.e. evolution, not creation.

For the benefit of those other than Asyncritus: complexity is not proof of design.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2008 17:24:06 by RD »

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
If this amazing bit of coding is so good, why didn't the creator use it everywhere?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
I did ask Asyncritus in a previous thread to account for the appearance of new viruses, (SARS AIDS, H571, etc), without mutation/evolution.

He is now telling us that God creates viruses. So God has created divinely perfect cell replication machinery only to create a perfect viral spanners to throw in the works.

Surely this is a contradiction in terms: if all cells were "carefully and competently designed" then none could be parasitized by virus, if viruses were also "carefully and competently designed" then why aren't all cells hosts to virus ?.

The answer is genetic variation in cells and viruses caused by random mutations, i.e. evolution, not creation.

For the benefit of those other than Asyncritus: complexity is not proof of design.


Maybe God is a virus and it only created everything else so his children could thrive.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
Either way,
I think wonderful discoveries like this can allow persons of either persuasion to marvel at the beautiful and intricate world we live in, strengthening our faith or our respect for nature.

This is not a "depends-on-the-way-you-look-at-it" issue: logically the "intelligent design" hypothesis is without foundation.

Bear in mind Evie that Asyncritus has asserted that viruses are designed by god, the inescapable implication being that viral disease is God's will. If this were the case vaccination would be attempting to thwart God's will, which is evil blasphemy which should be stopped.

Do you not think Asyncritus should be challenged on his groundless and pernicious assertion that viruses are made by God ?.

Scientists should not "back off" when confronted by those who promote this harmful "intelligent design" hypothesis: give them no quarter.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2008 18:50:18 by RD »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
The assertion "There is no conceivable way that these devices could have a chance origin,"
is simply, factually wrong, I can conceive of a way that such a thing could have a chance origin.

I only need to cite one counter example (me) to prove that Asyncritus's sugestion is false.

End of any sensible debate.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
I did ask Asyncritus in a previous thread to account for the appearance of new viruses, (SARS AIDS, H571, etc), without mutation/evolution.

I'm pretty sure you don't read my posts. I said in the other thread, that micro-evolution occurs. That some speciations have taken place. Did you read that, or were your blinding prejudices too powerful?

Mutations in viruses and bacteria are examples of such micro-evolution. When you can demonstrate mutations producing new families or orders better yet, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

Quote
He is now telling us that God creates viruses.
So God has designed divinely perfect cell replication machinery only to create perfect viral spanners to throw in the works.

I'm certain He does - because there is a thing called sin on the planet, which makes things subject to death and disease and disaster.

Otherwise we'd be a race of immortal sinners. The very thought is fearful. Just imagine Hitler and Hussain living forever!

Quote
Surely this is a contradiction in terms: if all cells were "carefully and competently designed" then none could be parasitized by virus,
if viruses were also "carefully and competently designed" then why aren't all cells hosts to virus ?.

The answer is genetic variation in cells and viruses caused by random mutations, i.e. evolution, not creation.

Sure, random mutations cause variation.
Nobody is denying that. DID YOU READ THAT? OR MISSED IT AGAIN?

But
a. mutations are either neutral, or harmful and

b.The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count.

So they do not produce new, better organisms, but are merely retrograde steps. So how did 14 new phyla arise in the Cambrian?

Try answering that question without having another fit, willya?

Quote
For the benefit of those other than Asyncritus: complexity is not proof of design.

I never said complexity BY ITSELF is proof of design.

There are 3 things which must be present before we can validly say 'design is present'.

1 Complexity

2 Specificity

3 Contingency.

Each is present in the virus example above.

1 It is an exceedingly complex phenomenon

2 It's purpose is specifically to save space on the genome

3 Contingency means it couldn't 'just happen'. This definitely didn't just happen.

 
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
I'm pretty sure you don't read my posts. I said in the other thread, that micro-evolution occurs. That some speciations have taken place. Did you read that, or were your blinding prejudices too powerful?

Mutations in viruses and bacteria are examples of such micro-evolution. When you can demonstrate mutations producing new families or orders better yet, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

So the creator's designs were improved upon?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Quote
This is not a "depends-on-the-way-you-look-at-it" issue: logically the "intelligent design" hypothesis is without foundation.

Quote
Bear in mind Evie that Asyncritus has asserted that viruses are designed by god, the inescapable implication being that viral disease is God's will. If this were the case vaccination would be attempting to thwart God's will, which is evil blasphemy which should be stopped.

Do you not think Asyncritus should be challenged on his groundless and pernicious assertion that viruses are made by God ?.

Please do challenge. But do so constructively please.

As I mentioned in my previous post, before we can say that design is present, then 3 things have to be present.

There are 3 things which must be present before we can validly say 'design is present'.

1 Complexity

2 Specificity

3 Contingency.

Each is present in the virus example above.

1 It is an exceedingly complex phenomenon

2 It's purpose is specifically to save space on the genome

3 Contingency means it couldn't 'just happen'. This definitely didn't just happen.

Now would you care to refute those 3 requirements and the worked example?
Quote
Scientists should not "back off" when confronted by those who promote this harmful "intelligent design" hypothesis: give them no quarter.

I fully agree with you on this. But do argue constructively and logically. In the same way as you view ID as harmful and pernicious, I view evolution as dangerous and demeaning to the human intellectual powers.

Now we've got the name calling out of the way, would you care to engage in some rational debate, and not disappear off the scene?

May I suggest 'The Origin of Instinct' as a good place to start?

I propose that instinct is of divine origin.

Fancy a go, in the name of logic and rationality,and for the benefit of the interested, non-writing, non-shouting readers of the board?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Quote
I'm pretty sure you don't read my posts. I said in the other thread, that micro-evolution occurs. That some speciations have taken place. Did you read that, or were your blinding prejudices too powerful?

Mutations in viruses and bacteria are examples of such micro-evolution. When you can demonstrate mutations producing new families or orders better yet, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

So the creator's designs were improved upon?

No - they were varied.

He created things with a built in capacity to vary. Just look around you.

But there are very definite limits as to how much variation can occur. There is a Law of Reversion to the Mean as Luther Burbank called it. Things can vary just so much, and no further. Burbank depended on plant breeding for his living, and wasn't one of these cross-eyed evolutionists in an ivory tower somewhere, far removed from the real world.

“There is a law of which I have not yet spoken that is useful to plant-breeders, as well as being a limitation on them. It is called the ‘law of the Reversion to the Average.’

I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grape-fruit. I have daisies on my farms little larger than my finger nail and some that measure six inches across, but I have none as big as a sunflower, and never expect to have….. In short, there are limits to the developments possible, and these limits follow a law” (BURBANK 1939).
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
If this amazing bit of coding is so good, why didn't the creator use it everywhere?

He probably had enough space in the larger genomes.

BTW who keeps changing my topic titles?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
There are 3 things which must be present before we can validly say 'design is present'.

1 Complexity

2 Specificity

3 Contingency.

Can you explain your reasoning as to why those 3 criteria indicate design exclusively and cannot be the result of evolution?
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Your topic title was changed as questions are better for search engines to find.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
No - they were varied.

He created things with a built in capacity to vary. Just look around you.

Yes, look around you. Almost everything you see can be explained scientifically.

My big problem with adherents of ID is that they come out with trite statements such as you have; "It can't be anything but...", "Scientists were surprised to find...", etc. The 1st of those statements is never backed up by any kind of proof that it can't be anything but intelligently designed. The eye is a case in point. It is claimed by IDers that there has not been enough time for the eye to have evolved. Well, sorry, but to me the fact that it is there and that evolution has been seen to be correct (or, at least, the mechanism of evolution), is proof that there indeed has been time for the eye to evolve.

Scientists are indeed surprised at times by what they find. A case in point was the discovery of, I believe, the Muon. One of the scientists on the team who discovered it exclaimed "Who ordered that?". But the Muon was investigated and is now a part of the Standard Model.

Throughout its history science has been full of "I didn't expect that" moments. But it is not automatically assumed that because we cannot explain something immediately that it must be the work of a Creator. Nor do I take the view that "There are some things we are not meant to know". That is total rubbish. There are indeed  things that we will probably never know - was there anything before the Big Bang? is ours the only universe? - but there are physical reasons why we will never know such things; no kind of Creator has said "Whoah, that's far enough" and put things beyond our reach deliberately.
« Last Edit: 13/11/2008 21:52:35 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
I did ask Asyncritus in a previous thread to account for the appearance of new viruses, (SARS AIDS, H571, etc), without mutation/evolution.

I'm pretty sure you don't read my posts. I said in the other thread, that micro-evolution occurs. That some speciations have taken place. Did you read that, or were your blinding prejudices too powerful?

Mutations in viruses and bacteria are examples of such micro-evolution. When you can demonstrate mutations producing new families or orders better yet, then you'll have a leg to stand on.

Quote
He is now telling us that God creates viruses.
So God has designed divinely perfect cell replication machinery only to create perfect viral spanners to throw in the works.

I'm certain He does - because there is a thing called sin on the planet, which makes things subject to death and disease and disaster.

Otherwise we'd be a race of immortal sinners. The very thought is fearful. Just imagine Hitler and Hussain living forever!

Quote
Surely this is a contradiction in terms: if all cells were "carefully and competently designed" then none could be parasitized by virus,
if viruses were also "carefully and competently designed" then why aren't all cells hosts to virus ?.

The answer is genetic variation in cells and viruses caused by random mutations, i.e. evolution, not creation.

Sure, random mutations cause variation
. Nobody is denying that. DID YOU READ THAT? OR MISSED IT AGAIN?

But
a. mutations are either neutral, or harmful and

b.The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count.

So they do not produce new, better organisms, but are merely retrograde steps. So how did 14 new phyla arise in the Cambrian?

Try answering that question without having another fit, willya?

In the above post you state that evolution does occur via rare beneficial genetic mutations, i.e. you are an evolutionist.
Environmental pressures acting upon genetic variations caused by random mutation, (which you have acknowledged occur), are sufficient to explain the diversity of life on Earth, no creator required.
You simply wish there to be such an entity to support your unjustifiable opinions, e.g. that viral disease is divine punishment for those whom you judge to be "sinners". BTW if viruses did not exist humans (& other animals) would not be "immortal", however there would be considerably less childhood mortality. Perhaps Asyncritus can tell us what sin an infant/child could have committed which justifies a death sentence via viral illness.

PS
    are animals who suffer from / die from viral disease also "sinners" ?, what sort of sin must a bird commit to get H5N1 ?.
     (I suppose a talking parrot could blaspheme).
« Last Edit: 15/11/2008 19:11:32 by RD »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
".The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count.
"
Not evinced annd probably not true.
Why the need keep making false statements in support of some all powerfull god?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
For pity's sake Asyncritus, sing a different song!
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Quote
There are 3 things which must be present before we can validly say 'design is present'.

1 Complexity

2 Specificity

3 Contingency.

Can you explain your reasoning as to why those 3 criteria indicate design exclusively and cannot be the result of evolution?

There's a whole book on the subject called Intelligent Design by William Dembski. He holds, I think, 3 PhDs in Maths, Philosophy and Theology.

It's far too much to attempt to reproduce the arguments here, but even at an intuitive level you can see that that is really the case.

There are complex things which are not designed, and may create the appearance of design, so by itself thais is not enough.

Contingency means that something couldn't just happen by itself - meaning that there is input of constructive information which is not available without thought. As a good example, the viral DNA could not code for 1 protein without a huge amount of information being present - mRNA, transcriptases, ribosomes,  translators etc etc.

To find it coding for TWO proteins using the SAME DNA space for the sake of economy, requires extremely high level information input. That is what I mean by 'contingency'.

Specificity is intuitively obvious. A tool or something else is specifically designed to do a particular job, and very often requires accurate measurements and other strict design detailing.

By itself, any one of the three COULD have 'just happened.' But put the 3 together and the statistical improbability is incalculable.

As I say, in so many cases in the natural world, these 3 features are clearly present. The eye, somebody mentioned is the classic case in point: but greater by very far, is the brain, and greater still is instinct.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
".The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count.
"
Not evinced annd probably not true.
Why the need keep making false statements in support of some all powerfull god?

Go find me a dozen examples of mutations producing new species. There's the whole internet out there for you to search.

Or are you bored to try?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
I'll give you 13 without even breaking sweat - Galapagos finches.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline BenV

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1503
    • View Profile
Quote
But do argue constructively and logically.
I think this is where people have a problem with you - you insist that we argue constructively and logically whilst holding on the the illogical fallacy that there is a god.  By choosing to blur the lines between religious philosophy and science you reject any and all logic that we can present to you.  This means that all arguments with you are pointless.

You also seem to be unaware that genetic translations, substitutions and deletions play a role in addition to mutations, so any probability you have worked out based on mutation rate alone is irrelevant.

*

Offline SquarishTriangle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 308
    • View Profile
If god is so concerned about making things incredibly efficient, why are you antagonising his efforts by making redundant arguments on a website where the people are clearly in no rush to be persuaded by you? He would be ashamed.

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
He's hoping to brainwash some innocent readers who are looking for real answers.

Isn't there some effective method of silencing forum trolls?
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage

Isn't there some effective method of silencing forum trolls?

Yes, ignore him. I'm going to.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
"The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count".
 
Not evinced and probably not true.
Why the need keep making false statements in support of some all powerfull god?

Anyone who seriously believes that a god determines who is afflicted by disease is understandably going to be sycophantic to that god.
They are of course deluding themselves. Genetic characteristics will largely determine what diseases we are subject to,
characteristics which were established before birth, before any sycophancy or sinning could take place.
So even if this god actually existed, kissing their ass is not going to change your genetic susceptibility to disease.
« Last Edit: 14/11/2008 16:07:23 by RD »

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Don't think so: jimbob said that the moderators aren't censors. So you're out of luck, I fear.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
I'll give you 13 without even breaking sweat - Galapagos finches.

Just to remind you. I accept that micro-evolution occurs, and some speciation. Remember that?

Also remember that Simpson said that it is pointless trying to find transitions at or above family level.

Which is what evolution needs to do. It also needs to explain how the finches learned to fly. As Dembski says:

"A scientific explanation needs to call upon causal powers sufficient to explain the effect in question. Otherwise, the effect is unexplained." http://www.designinference.com/documents/2002.12.Unfettered_Resp_to_Orr.htm
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
Go find me a dozen examples of mutations producing new species. There's the whole internet out there for you to search.

Just to remind you - that was the challenge. I answered it. Now you're saying you accept that micro-evolution occurs as if my answer does not satisfy your challenge. There are 13 species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. Is 13 ≥ a dozen? As far as I'm aware, it is. I think anyone who thinks properly will accept that I did indeed find "a dozen examples of mutations producing new species". By arguing that I did not you are merely trying to defend an untenable position.

So, here's a challenge for you - prove to us the method by which those finches came about if it was not mutation-based evolution.
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Quote
Go find me a dozen examples of mutations producing new species. There's the whole internet out there for you to search.

Just to remind you - that was the challenge. I answered it. Now you're saying you accept that micro-evolution occurs as if my answer does not satisfy your challenge. There are 13 species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. Is 13 ≥ a dozen? As far as I'm aware, it is. I think anyone who thinks properly will accept that I did indeed find "a dozen examples of mutations producing new species". By arguing that I did not you are merely trying to defend an untenable position.

So, here's a challenge for you - prove to us the method by which those finches came about if it was not mutation-based evolution.

If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Just out of idle curiosity can I ask why anyone is askig Asyncritus (or anyone else for that matter) why God did something?
Even if God existed then His last "direct communication" was roughly 2000 years ago. That story was written up a few hundred years later in the Bible.
It doesn't mention viruses. There is no way that anyone could know why God might have invented them. For anyone to claim to "know the mind of God" is outstandingly conceited.

I'm also intrigued by Asyncritus's reason for disease and death. It might be fair enough to say that, without death we would still have Hitler and Stalin.
OK that means that there is variation in the nature of people. If God aranges that disease (or whatever) kills them before they reporoduce then isn't that exactly the same as evolution anyway?

I'd also like to know what evil the dead bird I found in my garden had done?
« Last Edit: 15/11/2008 17:31:02 by Bored chemist »
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
I'd also like to know what evil the dead bird I found in my garden had done?


Crapped on my car just after I'd polished it!
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
If Arse-incritus doesn't answer me soon, I shall feel compelled to post this:-


« Last Edit: 15/11/2008 21:10:44 by DoctorBeaver »
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline RD

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8185
    • View Profile
I don't think Asyncritus is a moron...

Quote
Moron was originally an English scientific term ... used to describe a person with a mental age located between 8 and 12 on the Binet scale. It was once applied to people with an IQ of 51-70, being superior in one degree to "imbecile" (IQ of 26-50) and superior in two degrees to "idiot" (IQ of 0-25).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moron_(psychology)

I do think that he has been subject to indoctrination...

Quote
Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
« Last Edit: 15/11/2008 21:43:40 by RD »

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Maybe it should be a Prat Alert then!
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline SquarishTriangle

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 308
    • View Profile
I'd also like to know what evil the dead bird I found in my garden had done?

...and why I'm still here. Maybe he has a terrible aim.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Quote
Go find me a dozen examples of mutations producing new species. There's the whole internet out there for you to search.

Just to remind you - that was the challenge. I answered it. Now you're saying you accept that micro-evolution occurs as if my answer does not satisfy your challenge. There are 13 species of finch on the Galapagos Islands. Is 13 ≥ a dozen? As far as I'm aware, it is. I think anyone who thinks properly will accept that I did indeed find "a dozen examples of mutations producing new species". By arguing that I did not you are merely trying to defend an untenable position.

So, here's a challenge for you - prove to us the method by which those finches came about if it was not mutation-based evolution.

You're assuming the case.

As I understand it, it was 'reproductive isolation' that did the trick - which is another name for geographically forced inbreeding. And inbreeding does some strange things.

What it doesn't do is produce new families and above. Which, just to remind you, is what you have to establish.

And in case you may have forgotten, you have to also account for the existence of 14 or so new PHYLA  in the Cambrian. So account already.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
Why don't you understand that evolution is, given time, perfectly capable of generating fammilies, phyla and kingdoms?
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Why don't you understand that evolution is, given time, perfectly capable of generating fammilies, phyla and kingdoms?

Because, given known rates of evolutionary advance, there simply isn't enough time between the preCambrian and the Cambrian for 14 phyla to emerge.

Somebody above was saying that indoctrination means that you don;t think critically about an implanted belief system.

Now demonstrate your 'non-indoctrination' by thinking critically and asking a few questions about this enormously significant fact.
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
The limit you impose on which taxonomic ranks evolution can act upon is your own opinion. Evolutionary change is based on a continuum. Classifications are simply human constructs. If a sample of every single species ever produced had been preserved, you would see this clearly.

That said, Wikipedia's article on the Cambrian Explosion provides a very good account of the topic, and it's sources are cited!. So do many other internet sources. What is the point of repeating it all here? You know how to use search engines!

Here's a particularly interesting article: http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/the_cambrian_as_an_evolutionary_exemplar/
And another excellent page: http://www.outersystem.us/creationism/morton/cambevol.html

Again, you make it so pathetically clear that your arguments consist almost entirely of logical fallacies. You've been told to learn properly the topics you wish to criticize, but you haven't listened. Save yourself the humiliation and do some research.

By the way, where is your positive case for creationism? Whats the point of trying to disprove evolution if your motivation is a false ideology?
« Last Edit: 18/11/2008 01:53:25 by _Stefan_ »
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Quote
It's more than ten million years later that the spectacular and strange animals of the Burgess Shale make their appearance. It's during the Middle Cambrian that we can say most of the modern phyla are present, although of course the representatives of those phyla don't look much at all like their modern members.

One message from these data is that the Cambrian 'explosion' was real. It isn't an artifact of poor sampling of ancient rocks—we have a range of good fossils from the period before, and it's clear that the pre-Cambrian world was a different place than the post-Cambrian.

Don't you read your own links?

Engage brain - it is the organ of thought, not the oesophagus!

So where did that lot come from then? I'm talking about the Burgess shale - about which Gould wrote Wonderful Life, out of his own mouth condemning the very theory  he sought so hard to defend, and then quite ruined the whole thing by proposing Punctuated Equilibrium!!! Heh heh.

Ever heard of that?
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline _Stefan_

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 814
    • View Profile
    • My Photobucket Album
Of course I did. I prefer not to spread misinformation, unlike some. Did you read any of them? What don't you understand?
Stefan
"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish." -David Hume

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grape-fruit. I have daisies on my farms little larger than my finger nail and some that measure six inches across, but I have none as big as a sunflower, and never expect to have….. In short, there are limits to the developments possible, and these limits follow a law” (BURBANK 1939).

Within a specific environment, within one life span sure, it may be hard to achieve such a variation. But what about with a changing environment over thousands or millions of years? If this Burbank fellow had that much time to achieve his goal instead of the most insignificant blip in the vast scale of time, he might re-think his "law".

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile
Quote
There are 3 things which must be present before we can validly say 'design is present'.

1 Complexity

2 Specificity

3 Contingency.

Can you explain your reasoning as to why those 3 criteria indicate design exclusively and cannot be the result of evolution?

There's a whole book on the subject called Intelligent Design by William Dembski. He holds, I think, 3 PhDs in Maths, Philosophy and Theology.

It seems fitting to quote a recent post to another thread by dentstudent:

Argument from authority
Stating that a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. It is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background, education, and credentials, or to be suspicious of the claims of someone making authoritative statements in an area for which they cannot demonstrate expertise. But the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

*

Offline Madidus_Scientia

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
    • View Profile

Sure, random mutations cause variation.[/b] Nobody is denying that. DID YOU READ THAT? OR MISSED IT AGAIN?

But
a. mutations are either neutral, or harmful and

b.The number of beneficial mutations is infinitesimal and don't really count.

One may as well state that:
a. The objects are only either red or green.
b. The blue objects don't count.

Apart from being completely contradictory statements, of course they count! Especially if you are using this information to form a Theory of Objects.

Also, many mutations may seem neutral or harmful given the environment in which they occur. But a change of environment or conditions may turn it from neutral or harmful to beneficial. For example, a bacteria mutates so that it needs to consume twice as much energy just to survive and replicate. This may seem obviously harmful. But, this same mutation may happen to make it more resistant to a certain drug, which is introduced to its environment. All of a sudden this "harmful" mutation is in fact beneficial, as although it needs twice the energy, at least it survives where others do not.

Here's an excellent video demonstrating how such evolution can occur: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
You many find many of cdk007's other videos rather enlightening too.

Sorry for the triple post.
« Last Edit: 18/11/2008 14:19:56 by Madidus_Scientia »

*

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 8853
    • View Profile
"there simply isn't enough time between the preCambrian and the Cambrian for 14 phyla to emerge."
Since they did, there was.
Please disregard all previous signatures.

*

Offline DoctorBeaver

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 12656
  • A stitch in time would have confused Einstein.
    • View Profile
Quote
As I understand it, it was 'reproductive isolation' that did the trick - which is another name for geographically forced inbreeding. And inbreeding does some strange things.

Would you care to enlighten us as to the mechanism behind this? You obviously believe it has nothing to do with adaptive genetics. And if you think that inbreeding creates other species, how come all the inhabitants of Norwich are human?  [:D]
Fledgling science site at http://www.sciencefile.org/SF/content/view/54/98/ needs members and original articles. If you can help, please join.

*

Offline Asyncritus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 235
    • View Profile
Quote
As I understand it, it was 'reproductive isolation' that did the trick - which is another name for geographically forced inbreeding. And inbreeding does some strange things.

Would you care to enlighten us as to the mechanism behind this? You obviously believe it has nothing to do with adaptive genetics. And if you think that inbreeding creates other species, how come all the inhabitants of Norwich are human?  [:D]

Heh heh!
Remember, the organ of thought is the brain, not the oesophagus!

*

Offline rex789

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 11
    • View Profile
K. As I was studying for my step 1 micro syllabus I read thru the retroviridae family of viruses and thought that this here would be an excellent argument for intelligent design. Searched google and was brought to this page.

After reading thru you post, i see one big problem. Through out this discussion you repeatedly state "facts" like: "He probably had enough space in the larger genomes."
 
You (and all the debaters of intelligent design) had a one on one interview with this 'GOD'? well considering there is only one. So to prove you wrong all i have to do is talk to a hindu? they got tons of gods. i wonder if your god made their gods. of if your god was thrown out by their gods.

k leave the god discussion behind.

scientifically, mathematically, rationally you say that this complexity can't be attained?

that is exactly correct! why do i agree? because randomness is the Daddy of all that lives! If you say there is GOD, then i say yes there is. It's everywhere! it's complete randomness and chaos (not taken in mathematical terms obviously)!

what is the entirety of pi? and how do complex living things come about? two questions we know there is an absolute answer to!

pi has an end, we just will never find it
living things are! they are here! (viruses included - yeah yeah non living blah blah)
how did they come about? there is an absolute answer to it but we will never find it!
Is there GOD?
No there is none and it's absolute. why? because that would totally not be random!
and as for your original topic. yes HIV codes for multiple genes using the same string of ATGC \U

did you ever buy those transformer toys as a kid. u know the ones that have individual functions\character but you can put 3 or 4 or 7 together and make something totally different. Well welcome to bioengineering. biological systems are examples of chaotic systems specially in ecology and in evolution. Chaotic, this time in mathematical terms, because there is math involved there. Math is in the h-bonding vander-val forces and in the electron forces that make them: the primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures. all proteins follow set rules set forth by the interactions between the various forces at work ( atomic level and beyond). and following these simple but elegant rules yes, HIV can code for multiple proteins from the same set of base transformer characters (you can take the pegs, slides, clicks and hooks used to attach various models together as the forces that i am talking about)

to put this debate to an end.
GOD and SCIENCE will never mix. One is a study another a hoax. which is which depends on who u are. but if you want to be correct u kno the truth and so does every child soldier in africa just before he/she gets killed by another 11 year old. Who told me this? I can assume when you talk about sin this would be the ultimate! guns in hands of kids! and if a child can sin then trully there is no GOD!
« Last Edit: 17/03/2009 06:08:04 by rex789 »