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

a reply to: Noinden

Of course Yockey isn't a fan of intelligent design but unlike you and the other people on this board I read sources from atheist, intelligent design proponents and creationist. This is what you call an open mind. You guys are so blinded by what you believe, you will never quote a creationis or a proponent of intelligent design. This is because there can be no truth coming from people that don't blindly adhere to what you believe.

The Yockey quote you just posted supports me.

"Modern science shows that the genome is the answer to all objections based on gaps at any level. There is no need for a theory of “Intelligent Design” to explain any gaps. Darwin’s theory of evolution is among the most well-established theories in science."

First off, I haven't say anything about the huge gaps in evolution that Yockey is talking about and you must agree with. The genome is the answer to these gaps but the genome is where Yockey says there's an encoding/decoding system that can't occur through chance or self organization. So this argument falls flat. The gaps are explained by a system Yockey says can't be explain by the scientific method in a materialistic way.

Why is everything in italics?

a reply to: neoholographic

Yeah the Italics is annoying me too ....

You have no idea what I've read neighbour.

Your reading is a bit off or you are cherry picking

Lets see 16 references to Intellegent design in his letter to FTE.....

(a) (The missing ingredient needed for the origin of living matter is the
genome, not Intelligent Design.)

Nope


(b) There is no need for a theory of “Intelligent Design” to explain any
gaps. Darwin’s theory of evolution is among the most well-established theories in
science.

Nope

(c) Whatever I may have believed then, I quickly came to reject Creationism and I
certainly reject Intelligent Design.

a big fat NOPE

(d) I believed, and believe, Dr. Thaxton’s theories of creationism, now called intelligent design, must be entirely discarded.

(e) Science has no need for an Intelligent Designer any more than the planets and stars needed angels to move them around after Newton discovered the law of gravity and the three laws of motion.

yeah .....

The encoding system Yockey refers to isn't something being "encoded" it's chemical and atomic reactions based on the characteristics of the known universe. Chemicals that are bonded and reproduce that bond by expanding and breaking again and again. We don't know how life started in the universe, we don't know why life exists at all, but we DO know it evolves.

Frankly using information theory as a governance on chemical and atomic reactions is just plain stupid. He's either a fraud or just off. Intelligent design should not be taught instead of evolution.

originally posted by: Noinden
So if DNA is not information, what is it? It is a very complex molecule, whose structures determine its function in living organisms. Information is just a phrase we humans use to make sense of what we are observing. When DNA (through RNA) is used to create a protein, it is reacting with the chemical (amino acids) which make up the protein in question.

What then is meant by genetic information? Instructions? Blue prints etc; as has always been used in the context of the genome?

Are you saying that DNA is not information only as it applies to information theory? Are you saying then that information in the Shannon sense is a complete farce? What about the central dogma?

Do you also mean that DNA does not contain or store genetic information either? Are we not able to extrapolate information from DNA? Sorry, I'm just honestly confused by your insinuations.

originally posted by: Noinden
Have you read Yockey's work? No seriously. I have, He was a Physicist, and he interpreted the world through the eyes of one. The largest criticism of his work, is that he sees DNA far too simply.

So what that he was a physicist. Does that in anyway diminish his thoughts on DNA? I think it's important that minds from other fields of science also have a look.

I mean, biology is not free from the laws of physics. We owe the structure of DNA and even our own morphological forms to the physical laws of the universe....

You even said it yourself:

originally posted by: Noinden
DNA stores it’s biochemical potential, and is subject to the “laws” of chemistry and Physics, not informational theory.

originally posted by: Noinden
Feel free to ignore what I wrote, I speak as a biochemist and chemist. DNA is NOT information.

Could I say then that you have a bias toward more of a chemical view of DNA.
But you are also in bioinformatics, right? Doesn't that involve the analysis of raw biological data?

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Question: are planets alive?

The requirement to live somewhere is living.

Actually you pose an interesting question. The theory of consciousness IIT (Integrated Information Theory) would 'suggest' or at least question that everything is conscious. For example, it would actually feel like something to be a mobile phone.

(queue creepy music)

originally posted by: angryhulk

originally posted by: imjack
a reply to: burgerbuddy

Question: are planets alive?

The requirement to live somewhere is living.

Actually you pose an interesting question. The theory of consciousness IIT (Integrated Information Theory) would 'suggest' or at least question that everything is conscious. For example, it would actually feel like something to be a mobile phone.

(queue creepy music)

(as im viewing this on a mobile device)

O_O.....

a reply to: Phantom423

How about BRCA1 and 2? That's an inherited gene.

BRCA1 and 2 mutations are not themselves cancer, and do not guarantee that cancer will strike the individual who carries them. Individuals who carry the mutation have an increased likelihood of getting breast cancer (from about 12% in the general population to 55% for BRCA1 or 45% for BRCA2) or ovarian cancer (from about 1.3% to 39% for BRCA1 or 15% for BRCA2) before the age of 70.

Cancer is not spread genetically, though if one of the gametes was cancerous, one would assume that the cancer would be in the zygote as well.

If you're a molecular biologist, or anyone else on the board is, I have a question for you: taking the BRCA gene as an example, did the first person who had the mutation automatically develop it in the germline so that it was immediately inheritable? Or does the mutation occur in the somatic cells and then move to the germline i.e. crossover to become inheritable?

I am not a molecular biologist, however...

A mutation MUST occur in a gamete (a sperm or an egg) or as the zygote mulitplies in order to be in ALL cells in the body.

A mutation 'strikes' one section of DNA in one cell. It may be caused by a cosmic ray or UV strike, it could be a replication error, chemical pollution, or any of a number of things. But it only hits one piece of DNA of one cell at a time. Of course disease could damage many cells in similar ways so that is at least one exception to the once cell at a time 'rule'.

What happens during sexual reproduction is that a male individual provides a sperm cell containing half the genetic information for the development of a new individual of the next generation. The femail individual provides an egg cell containing the other half of the genetic information. 100% of the genetic information required for the development of the next generation individual comes from those two sources, the egg and the sperm.

Mutations can occur at several points; errors can be produced when the sperm cell(s) are formed, or when the egg cell is formed. Mutations can occur when the sperm and the egg join. Mutations can occur as the zygote undergoes its first mitosis cycle and before it becomes a blastomere. Basically it has to occur when the cell count is very small or else it won't be in all the child cells.

A somatic cancer cell in the liver or the breast doesn't have anything to do with reproduction. Of course, Ovarian cancer or testicular cancer could theoretically play havoc with the eggs or sperm. The point is that some mutation striking the DNA in some guy's left hand so he starts growing web fingers when he turns 30, is NOT going to be transmitted to his children. It just isn't.

BRCA1 and 2 started in one individual (perhaps different individuals, I don't know). That individual had children who then carried the mutation, and did their children and their children. Everytime a carrier had more than one child, BRCA1 and 2 increased in the population. Since BRCA1 and BRCA2 don't guarantee that the carrier will develop cancer, let alone what age cancer will strike if it does, it is not, in general filtered out of the gene pool by natural selection. In other words, it has little or no effect on the carrier's ability to reproduce - as far as evolution is concerned it is basically a neutral mutation.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Scientists specialize. So while he was (as I said he died this year) scientifically trained, his area of expertise was not molecular biology, or genetics. Thus (as I also said) he over simplified the way DNA functions.

The fact remains, he did not support ID or creationism. Every time his work was dragged into that, he fired back rebuttal.

I will also note, that he did not refute evolution ever. He was just not a fan of the "primordial soup" hypothesis for life. To be fair abiogenesis/proteogenesis has many hypotheses that could be the right one, or we've not thought of it yet.

Oh and yes I have a bias, towards Chemistry, biochemistry, and Bioinformatics. Strangely they are the sciences involved here.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It is chemical potential. The problem with analogies (and Watson and Crick forced this analogy by using the word "code" (still used in "codon")) is they are not very good beyond the basic level.


The reason DNA is NOT information in the sense of information theory, is there is no predetermined outcome (like say a book, or a program). So yeah it's information of a sort, but far more than that, what alphabet, or language do you know that self replicates, all on it's lonesome?

originally posted by: nemonimity
We don't know how life started in the universe, we don't know why life exists at all, but we DO know it evolves.

No, it is theorized that it can evolve. It is known that life can adapt (epigenetics, genetic drift, etc).

originally posted by: rnaa

Mutations can occur at several points; errors can be produced when the sperm cell(s) are formed, or when the egg cell is formed. Mutations can occur when the sperm and the egg join. Mutations can occur as the zygote undergoes its first mitosis cycle and before it becomes a blastomere. Basically it has to occur when the cell count is very small or else it won't be in all the child cells.

Good point. Few have realized or meditated on this concept. If an opportunity for a beneficial mutation only occurs once every generation, With approximately 3,200,000,000 nucleotides in the human genome, it seems unfathomable that even 1,000,000,000 years could have allowed so many beneficial mutations to occur - especially when no known beneficial mutation has graced humanity in our written history.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: nemonimity
We don't know how life started in the universe, we don't know why life exists at all, but we DO know it evolves.

No, it is theorized that it can evolve. It is known that life can adapt (epigenetics, genetic drift, etc).

originally posted by: rnaa

Mutations can occur at several points; errors can be produced when the sperm cell(s) are formed, or when the egg cell is formed. Mutations can occur when the sperm and the egg join. Mutations can occur as the zygote undergoes its first mitosis cycle and before it becomes a blastomere. Basically it has to occur when the cell count is very small or else it won't be in all the child cells.

Good point. Few have realized or meditated on this concept. If an opportunity for a beneficial mutation only occurs once every generation, With approximately 3,200,000,000 nucleotides in the human genome, it seems unfathomable that even 1,000,000,000 years could have allowed so many beneficial mutations to occur - especially when no known beneficial mutation has graced humanity in our written history.

i suppose its an excellent thing that science is not constrained by your comprehensive skills.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

i suppose its an excellent thing that science is not constrained by your comprehensive skills.

Ahh watch your words sir. I am glad my comprehension is not constrained solely to science, for such tunnel vision blinds the self from the bigger picture.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
... im done here... sayonara.

Yet here you remain - Your word means nothing!

a reply to: cooperton

Not so adapt means to change in accordance with an outside influence, evolution encapsulates adaption as it's the process in which life forms diversify and grow apart over time, which includes adaption.

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: cooperton

evolution encapsulates adaption as it's the process in which life forms diversify and grow apart over time, which includes adaption.

It doesn't. Adaptation is not evolution. If I go up to higher altitudes my blood adapts to the varying pressure and oxygen levels... this is NOT evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: nemonimity
a reply to: cooperton

evolution encapsulates adaption as it's the process in which life forms diversify and grow apart over time, which includes adaption.

It doesn't. Adaptation is not evolution. If I go up to higher altitudes my blood adapts to the varying pressure and oxygen levels... this is NOT evolution.

When you climb a mountain to an altitude where the air is thinner and slowly acclimate to it is not adaptation. People like the Sherpa and many Tibetans who inherited the EPSA1 gene from Denisovans... That's adaptation.

There's also a similar mutation that occurred in the Andes that is an example of convergent evolution.

a reply to: cooperton

NO try again: In biology, an adaptation, also called an adaptive trait, is a trait with a current functional role in the life of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection. (1)

(1) Huxley, Julian (1942). Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. p. 449