The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: CharlestonChew

Good reply - thanks for illustrating that concept for me.

Demonstration on How the Knee Cap is so Helpful for our Movement

It has been repeated over and over and over. I have even repeated the questions.. Here they are again:

This is not true, I have read thru this thread since it began and I saw many questions he gave that no one has answered. Many of them. Why are you asking me. They are already here. You didn't even see them did you? That does not surprise me.

Well here are a few of them:

How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

Why does the repressor attach itself to the operator and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why does the repressor attach to the operator when lactose isn't present and how did the mechanics evolve?

Why do you have promoter, operator then genes and how did this sequence evolve?

What stops the RNA Polymerase when the repressor is attached to the operator? Why can't it express the lac genes and how did this mechanism evolve?

How did Repressors, Enhancers and Activators evolve and how did the mechanics evolve for there role in gene regulation?

Which evolved first the enhancers, activators, promoter region or DNA coding sequence and how did the mechanics evolve?

How did the bending protein evolve and how did the mechanics evolve where the bending protein folds the DNA strand to the spot near the promoter which activates gene expression?

Why does the activators attach themselves to the enhancers and how did the mechanics evolve?

Which evolved first gene regulation or gene expression? How did these things evolve and how did the mechanics evolve?

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: TzarChasm

If you look at their posts, usually they are in the thousands or even tens of thousands.
...
Do you not see a pattern?

Are you familiar with the term astroturfing?

This line I found particularly interesting (thinking about forms of astroturfing that aren't related to making "it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participant(s)"):

It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source's financial connection.

Over 24,000 posts in 4 years just seems like an awful lot if you're not getting something in return (of course if you're very zealous...).

Also note the post with all the googled links from Krazysh0t, I had a look at the first one and was slapped in my face with mythology right away, there are clear words in that article that admit that (a biased person probably won't notice, but the word "theories" there early on is more appropiately referred to as unverified philosophies/ideas, myths/false stories. Of course the publishers of that article are hoping that some readers who read "theories" there actually think of so-called "scientific theories". Another keyword: "may". That's all they've got, 'nature did it' ('it evolved'), supported by fanciful maybe-so stories to make that claim sound as plausible as they can to the biased hearer or reader. Note that neoholographic's original question said: "How did....?" not "How might...."? Big difference that certain people no doubt want to downplay. Truths/certainties vs fiction/maybe-so stories/might be-so stories, as if what "might be" even matters (using your fantasy and walking around in La La Land) when talking about science (from the Latin "scientia" meaning knowledge: a familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study.) Where I'm using a / I'm using synonyms.

From wiki:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

English philosopher and historian of science William Whewell coined the term scientist in 1833,...

Whewell wrote of "an increasing proclivity of separation and dismemberment" in the sciences; while highly specific terms proliferated—chemist, mathematician, naturalist—the broad term "philosopher" was no longer satisfactory to group together those who pursued science, without the caveats of "natural" or "experimental" philosopher.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ...

I've read more of the "answer" now that Krazysh0t provided and have only one thing left to say:

neurotic speculation of the obsessive compulsive kind

And a video with more details about how inductive reasoning works (also regarding the subject of the Lac operon remember that the "functional arrangement" in the DNA sequence that is called the Lac operon is a "part" of the entire DNA genome as well as a larger system of information processing, many things that count for machines also count for codes/blueprints/recipes when they are interdependent and co-functional with those machines in a larger system of machinery; see the video for those quotations), from 35:30 - 39:30:

a reply to: whereislogic

You astound me!

That is all I can state. I am left speechless. Really? You found that quote I said and linked it to that fake? I am not the only one?

a reply to: LifeisGrand

So nothing that actually conflicts with evolution, just questions about how certain things evolved, when we don't know all those answers yet. I hate to break to you, but not knowing the answer as to how everything evolved doesn't prove it wrong. We don't know everything about gravity and how it emerged, but that doesn't mean gravity is false.

Those questions are like if I asked you "What is the origin of god?", or "What are the mechanics of heaven and how did it emerge?", and since you don't know you can't answer so god MUST be wrong right? Sorry it doesn't work like that. To go against the theory, you need conflicting data and evidence. I have not seen this. Anybody can ask a question about the unknown, but not anybody can actually address the evidence itself and debunk it. You guys don't seem to understand that science isn't just made up, there is high scrutiny over experiments and results and what is acceptable. If you can't address the science you have nothing.

a reply to: Barcs

You aren't breaking anything new to me. You will learn sometime, about things, you were never taught. Because, obviously, you are incapable of logical coherent thought yourself. You leave yourself in a mold you have been taught you need to be in. And do not question it.

For that I pity you. And understand you.

I do. But don't think you are teaching me anything.

It's like a 14-year-old who thinks they know a lot more than their parents.

a reply to: LifeisGrand

So nothing but insults... Gotcha.

Faith and evolution arguments really brings out the emotion in people. Why can't you just calm down and admit we really don't have all the answers yet. The questions should be asked to a biologist or geneticist, not random people on the internet.

askabiologist.asu.edu...

genetics.thetech.org...

Here you go. By all means ask whatever you want and paste the responses here. I'd be interested in what the experts have to say about those questions. I don't know nearly enough about genetics, but it sounds like most of the questions are related to how DNA emerged which is related to abiogenesis, not evolution.

a reply to: Barcs

No.

Stop it.

And answer one of the questions from the OP. Here right here. No one has. Can you? I said you couldn't. I doubt you can prove me wrong. You haven't so far, actually no one has. And I have a lot lot lot lot more to say on this, which I have remained quiet about.

A lot.

Perhaps, if you answer one of the questions stated, about 8 times? with no response. I will indulge in my own questions. But if you can't answer his, I don't know how you can answer mine.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
How did the mechanics of the lac operon evolve?

biology.stackexchange.com...

Here are some very good ideas on that. Again, it's not completely clear, but scientists have a good idea of how it happened.

The rest of the questions are silly. They repeat the same questions over and over and ask why instead of how.

Gene regulation and expression needs proteins in order to regulate the expression of genes. Which evolved first, how did it evolve and how did the mechanics evolve? Did the expression come before the regulation or did they both just magically appear as a system that works beautifully together?

This has nothing to do with evolution. Every question you asked is related to abiogenesis rather than biological evolution. Not knowing the answer isn't evidence for the opposing position. Sorry you don't like that, but that's how it is. I get that DNA is complex and that we don't know exactly how it first emerged, but that doesn't prove anything, especially not design. The primary axiom of evolution is genetic mutations and natural selection, NOT the emergence of DNA. You may want to read about the RNA world hypothesis if you are truly interested in answers, but I don't think you are.

originally posted by: LifeisGrand
a reply to: Barcs

No.

Stop it.

And answer one of the questions from the OP. Here right here. No one has. Can you? I said you couldn't. I doubt you can prove me wrong. You haven't so far, actually no one has. And I have a lot lot lot lot more to say on this, which I have remained quiet about.

A lot.

Perhaps, if you answer one of the questions stated, about 8 times? with no response. I will indulge in my own questions. But if you can't answer his, I don't know how you can answer mine.

Good points and the truth is they can't answer them. They blindly believe in the fantasy of evolution.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Good points and the truth is they can't answer them. They blindly believe in the fantasy of evolution.

Erm, I just answered one... Plus the majority of the questions are not related to evolution. Sorry. If I asked you 10 unanswerable questions about god, would it prove god wrong? Of course not. I would absolutely LOVE to see you debunk the physical tangible evidence in favor of evolution rather than speculate on how DNA originally emerged.

a reply to: rnaa

Your so wise you should be a creator of the universe! You know how it works!

Too bad your rna and haven't evolved to DNA yet

Whatever floats your boat friend

Clearly, I care not of how the body got to this point. It's temporary.

I'm more concerned how consciousness and electricity came to be, and where it goes after matter degrades (the only inevitable).

Cheers

a reply to: Barcs

That really isn't an answer you know.

It makes no sense.

But let us imagine in our minds that it does. So that we can believe in our fairy tale.

One protein in the human body has a chance of a billion billion billion of folding on itself correctly . That is, if you had a primordial soup, not he size of the earth, but the size of our entire universe (which is estimated to be 13.8 billion years old) it would require much much much much longer than the lifespan of our universe to have folded upon itself correctly.

That is 1 protein.

There are 50,000 proteins the human body.

And on order for it to have arisen (the human body) it needs the DNA which is a book with over 2 billion letters (enough to fill books the size of the Grand Canyon) and it has fail-checkes and rewrites as well as being able to code itself forward and backward unlike a normal book.

And also along with the DNA and the 50,000 proteins (of which 1 has the probability of many times the lifetime of our universe to form by itself) it needs RNA as well, which replicates the DNA.

The chances are so slim, that in statistics of one protein arriving by chance is actually impossible. But you expect us to believe that 50,000 of them did, as well as a book full of instructions to build a human, that would fill the Grand Canyon, as well as RNA, all at the exact same time. Because none of them could have come about without the other.

Do you realize what this means? I have much much and many other questions. But no one has ever answered these questions for me. Aside for saying. ummmm......uh, probability and Chance, they are our gods... many many many many many many many times over. And we bow to them.

We hate logic.

And then laugh at me when I give them logic. With a little cough. You know, because they know their laugh is of a bully who has no clue but has been taught to believe and have "faith in what they are taught. Much like the Cathoilics.

Tell me. What is the difference?

I haven't even gotten started. Not even close, this is just the beginning.

Start answering you smart intelligent person.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: neoholographic
Good points and the truth is they can't answer them. They blindly believe in the fantasy of evolution.

Erm, I just answered one... Plus the majority of the questions are not related to evolution. Sorry. If I asked you 10 unanswerable questions about god, would it prove god wrong? Of course not.

Of course they are and the questions posted are directly related to the lac operon. The problem is, they can't be answered by those who support evolution. Now you're saying the lac operon isn't related to evolution? Are you saying repressors, enhancers and promotors associated with the lac operon have nothing to do with evolution LOL?

That makes zero sense but this is what happens. When you can't answer the question, you say well the questions are wrong. Nope, you just can't answer them. This is because most people have a blind belief about evolution. It's the Primary Axiom.

The lac operon has nothing to do with evolution? Tell this Biology Teacher this.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's even more evidence:

Researchers find surprising similarities between genetic and computer codes

Computational biologist Sergei Maslov of Brookhaven National Laboratory worked with graduate student Tin Yau Pang from Stony Brook University to compare the frequency with which components "survive" in two complex systems: bacterial genomes and operating systems on Linux computers. Their work is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Maslov and Pang set out to determine not only why some specialized genes or computer programs are very common while others are fairly rare, but to see how many components in any system are so important that they can't be eliminated. "If a bacteria genome doesn't have a particular gene, it will be dead on arrival," Maslov said. "How many of those genes are there? The same goes for large software systems. They have multiple components that work together and the systems require just the right components working together to thrive.'"

Using data from the massive sequencing of bacterial genomes, now a part of the DOE Systems Biology Knowledgebase (KBase), Maslov and Pang examined the frequency of usage of crucial bits of genetic code in the metabolic processes of 500 bacterial species and found a surprising similarity with the frequency of installation of 200,000 Linux packages on more than 2 million individual computers. Linux is an open source software collaboration that allows designers to modify source code to create programs for public use.

phys.org...

This is just like irreducible complexity. There's multiple components that work together and these components are preserved by the system. SIMPLY FASCINATING!

It may seem logical, but the surprising part of this finding is how universal it is. "It is almost expected that the frequency of usage of any component is correlated with how many other components depend on it," said Maslov. "But we found that we can determine the number of crucial components – those without which other components couldn't function – by a simple calculation that holds true both in biological systems and computer systems."

For both the bacteria and the computing systems, take the square root of the interdependent components and you can find the number of key components that are so important that not a single other piece can get by without them.

Maslov's finding applies equally to these complex networks because they are both examples of open access systems with components that are independently installed. "Bacteria are the ultimate BitTorrents of biology," he said, referring to a popular file-sharing protocol. "They have this enormous common pool of genes that they are freely sharing with each other. Bacterial systems can easily add or remove genes from their genomes through what's called horizontal gene transfer, a kind of file sharing between bacteria," Maslov said.

Again, there's NO WAY random mutations and natural selection can produce a code like this with compression of information that's just astounding. This is intelligence and the Primary Axiom from the RELIGIOUS ADHERENTS of evolution makes ZERO SENSE.

Back to the irreducible complexity argument. It is not irreducibly complex otherwise mutations complex otherwise mutations and adaptations couldnt happen. DNA is not irreducibly complex because you can break it down to the atomic level and all the atoms and subsequent molecules that are formed adhere to every principle and prediction one would make based on chemistry. Behe may be a smart man in somerespects, but he let bias cloud his basic judgement on this one.

Also, Its not the same type of code as a computer code otherwise mutations and adaptations could not happen. That is trying to take a metaphor literally. That is why it is called an analogy.

You have zero evidence showing in any way that life defies any principal of chemistry nor give any explanation as to why every function in an organisms body operates off chemical reactions.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


I explained it in my post. Try reading from the view of what I'm posting rather than rebutting with a talking point. Emperical vs. theoretical.


Links? Great. More 'opinion' also not connected to the thread.

a reply to: Barcs

I answered all of them with links here. The fact that they are still pretending like these questions are unanswered is just astounding. No wait. No it isn't. They just aren't looking to deny ignorance with this discussion. Only echo chambers are allowed here. Everything else is ignored.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Lol. I'd say confirmation bias confirmed here, but we've talked in the past and I already know about your confirmation bias.

By the way, I'm not a science professor, and if you TRULY wanted the answer to that question (which I know you don't since you are trying to trap me with a "gotcha" question) you'd go ask one.

It's always funny how denialists pretend like just because they have the capability to ask a question that suddenly means the concept isn't true.

I've talked to many of the priests (PhD in science) regarding the topic and there is no answer. Yet this is not addressed, because you can't publicly address the logical fallacies of evolution without being stigmatized as a heretic. You'd think this dogma would've been crushed in the early 20th century with the advent of quantum physics, yet it is still in the mainstream to materially reduce everything - mostly because of the blind followers of the faith.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Krazysh0t


I explained it in my post. Try reading from the view of what I'm posting rather than rebutting with a talking point. Emperical vs. theoretical.

I did. It came off as a string of nonsense.

Links? Great. More 'opinion' also not connected to the thread.

Just like everything you've posted.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Lol. I'd say confirmation bias confirmed here, but we've talked in the past and I already know about your confirmation bias.

By the way, I'm not a science professor, and if you TRULY wanted the answer to that question (which I know you don't since you are trying to trap me with a "gotcha" question) you'd go ask one.

It's always funny how denialists pretend like just because they have the capability to ask a question that suddenly means the concept isn't true.

I've talked to many of the priests (PhD in science) regarding the topic and there is no answer. Yet this is not addressed, because you can't publicly address the logical fallacies of evolution without being stigmatized as a heretic. You'd think this dogma would've been crushed in the early 20th century with the advent of quantum physics, yet it is still in the mainstream to materially reduce everything - mostly because of the blind followers of the faith.

Sigh... The ultimate evolution denier fail. Can't refute anymore of the theory? Just start comparing it to religion. I'll just ignore this and wait for you to come up with something better to talk about.