How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

a reply to: cooperton

a reply to: cooperton

Ok surely you can see you are contradicting yourself, you claimed DNA is binary code

then a few posts later you claim its quaternary code, because you knew full well you were wrong

and try to claim that you knew it was different all along because binary cant code DNA because of the total number of possible 4 amino acid combinations

then you resort to personal attacks because you cant defend your own stance

using ageism to paint your opponent as inferior !

honestly , just please give up this tirade
its painful to watch someone revel in their own ignorance

originally posted by: Phantom423

Correction: That paper was NOT a computer simulation, no matter how much you insist it is.

Send me the methods please. All you sent me indicated that it was a computer simulation.

You think you found a needle in a haystack or a "gotcha" by insisting that the Chinese paper was a computer simulation. Well you DID NOT.

I was matter-of-factly asking for you to send me the methods because I didn't have access to the paper. The methods you sent me were regarding a computer simulation, hence my conclusion that the paper was a computer simulation.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

Ok surely you can see you are contradicting yourself, you claimed DNA is binary code

No I didnt. I said this:

"Computer code is based on 1's and 0's. A binary yes or no option that serves as the basis for more complex coding. Similarly the genetic code has an A, G, T or C option for each of its positions in a coding sequence."

You guys are getting distracted by semantics trying to catch me in my word. I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I never called DNA code binary.
Obviously A, G, T and C add up to 4 letters, making it a quaternary code.

a reply to: cooperton

I told you before - ACS does not allow reproduction of any part of their papers without permission of the author. Write them a letter and ask for a copy of the paper.

a reply to: cooperton

"Computer code is based on 1's and 0's. A binary yes or no option that serves as the basis for more complex coding. Similarly the genetic code has an A, G, T or C option for each of its positions in a coding sequence." You guys are getting distracted by semantics trying to catch me in my word. I'll admit when I'm wrong, but I never called DNA code binary. Obviously A, G, T and C add up to 4 letters, making it a quaternary code. edit on 23-1-2019 by cooperton because: (no reason given)

And once again you ignore the salient points:

Computer/software code is nothing like DNA for the following reasons:

1. The computer itself and the software that runs on it required the inspiration and development of humans. A computer and the software are not self replicating and can never be self replicating without human input.

2. DNA is self replicating. That implies that it was always self replicating. The first self assembled DNA molecule was by default self replicating. It needed no outside input to design or for future development.

3. DNA can actively correct errors, change its constituent code, evolve by mutation or novel processes. It is self sustaining. RNA and enzymes which interface with the DNA molecule are part of the complex system.

4. DNA is a dynamical system which is never in thermal equilibrium. No outside force is required to boot it up or shut it down.

5. DNA is an informational molecule. Its bioenergetics are provided by the energy flow through the system beginning with the sun. Therefore, other than a suitable environment for energy flow, nothing else is required for a self replicating molecule like DNA to exist.

6. You can lay out all the internal components of a computer on a table including the script for a program like C++. You can wait a thousand years and it will never assemble itself. The examples of self assembly of nucleic acids, micelles and amino acids are well known phenomena reproduced in countless laboratories.

If you don't understand the complexity, just say so. There's always hope for the hopeless.

originally posted by: Phantom423

And once again you ignore the salient points:

I already answered your attempts at making computer code sound different than genetic code

originally posted by: Phantom

Computer/software code is nothing like DNA for the following reasons:

1. The computer itself and the software that runs on it required the inspiration and development of humans. A computer and the software are not self replicating and can never be self replicating without human input.

Yes, computer code requires the development of humans. Just like genetic code requires the development by a Creator.

2. DNA is self replicating. That implies that it was always self replicating. The first self assembled DNA molecule was by default self replicating. It needed no outside input to design or for future development.

Yes, a process that we humans have been incapable of programming into computers. This shows that the design of humans and living organisms far surpasses the intelligent capabilities of humans. Another testament to the intelligence required to design life.

3. DNA can actively correct errors, change its constituent code, evolve by mutation or novel processes. It is self sustaining. RNA and enzymes which interface with the DNA molecule are part of the complex system.

This is what anti-virus programs do on computers.

4. DNA is a dynamical system which is never in thermal equilibrium. No outside force is required to boot it up or shut it down.

Computers can be programmed to turn on or off without user input. When a computer gets too hot, there is a program that triggers a fan to cool it down.

5. DNA is an informational molecule.

Computer code is information too.

There's always hope for the hopeless.

Lol and what exactly is the hope that evolutionists have? The theory is a dead end that leads to nihilism, and strips people of hope.

After 23 pages has anyone actually suggested that terms like male/female, sexes, hell even the term life etc are human terms that mean nothing to evolution, nature or the universe?

a reply to: Xtrozero

so evolution , has nothing to do with sexual reproduction are they not intertwined in that most animals on earth require sexual reproduction to successfully pass on genetic information to the next generation
and thus continue the long marching process of evolution ?

well I disagree because everything in the Universe is intimately linked the very conditions which are necessary for life have come about because of the specific physical properties of the Universe itself

How can sex, mean nothing to evolution when , we can see that evolution occurs by the passing of genetic information from one generation to the next by sexual reproduction over a large period of time

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Yes - but as I said, you don't have access to Materials and Methods. That means you don't have access to the actual experiment, only to the theoretical setup.

Post the actual material and methods here then.

Here are the Materials and Methods. And as I said before, the simulation was done to analyze detail about bonding energies, etc. But the experiment itself was not based on a computer simulation.

Materialsl and Methods Materials:
All peptides with purity level above 98% were purchased from Shanghai ZiYu Biotech Co.,Ltd. All DNA oligonucleotides (purified with dual PAGE) were purchased from Invitrogen Life Technologies (Shanghai, China). RNA (with 2’Ome modification) was purchased from Shanghai GenePharma Co., Ltd, and purified with HPLC. Hemin, HEPES/HEPES sodium salt, Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4 salts, H2O2, horseradish peroxidase (HRP), 2,2’-Azino-bis(3- ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salt (ABTS2−), Hoechst 33258 dye, 3,3',5,5'- Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), phenol, o-dianisidine, homovanillic acid, pyrogallol and DMSO were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Activity assay As-received lyophilized DNA or peptides were dissolved in deionized water to make 100 µM or 400 µM stock solution, and stored at -20oC. Repetitive freeze-thawing operations should be avoided. Hemin was dissolved in DMSO to make a 100 nM-10µM stock solution, stored at room temperature. DNA and peptide with required concentrations were mixed with hemin for 20 min. The assembly time was determined by the CD signals of DNA (the conformation was disturbed by the peptide) and UV-vis absorbance of hemin, ensuring the assembly efficiency of the complex. Freshly prepared H2O2 and the reducing substrates were added to the solution containing the assembled complexes, and the time-dependent absorbance change at the reactant or the product was recorded, which were used to calculate the initial catalytic velocity and the maximum conversion efficiency. Each measurement was repeated four times. Characterizations The samples for TEM imaging were prepared by placing 5 µL of the sample solution on a glow-discharged carbon-coated grid (400 meshes, Ted Pella), followed by the wicking away of the unbound sample and solution evaporation. The TEM characterization was conducted using a Hitachi H-7700 microscope operating at 80 kV. The CD spectra were measured by a Jasco J-810 spectropolarimeter. The Ultraviolet-visible absorption spectra were recorded using a UV-VIS spectrophotometer (UV-2450, Shimadzu). The fluorescence was measured with a spectrofluorometry (F-4500, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) (for Hoechst 33258 dye, λex= 346 nm). Scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) and the elemental mapping were performed in FEI Tecnai F20 using a high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) detector, coupled with an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDX). Zeta-potential measurements were performed using a Malvern Zeta sizer Nano ZS instrument

Here is the theoretical basis for the computer simulation:

Theoretical Simulations: Multi-scale computational methods (quantum-chemical calculations, molecular docking and molecular dynamic simulation) were applied to understand the activation center by exploring the structure, dynamics and interaction of DNA DzI, peptide H32 and hemin. The DNA model was built on the basis of Bcl-2 (pdb:2f8U)63 by retaining the conformation of G-quadruplexes and replacing the loop nucleobases. Fe(III) protoporphyrin IX (pdb:2QSP)64 from bovine haemoglobin were used as hemin models. All the MD simulations were performed using the Gromacs 5.0 package65,66 combined with the AMBER03 force field67 and TIP4P solvent model.68 Na+ was used as counter ions to neutralize the systems and the temperature and pressure were maintained using V-rescale thermostat69 and isothermal-isobaric ensemble.70 Particle Mesh Ewald (PME)71 was employed to deal with the long-range electrostatic interactions. The peptide and DNA conformations from the MD equilibration were used for molecular docking. All the molecular docking simulations were carried out with Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm (LGA) using Auto-Dock 4.2.6.72 A big grid box size of 126 × 126 × 126 points with a large spacing of 0.753 Å (DNA & peptide) and 0.375 Å (DNA & Heme) between the grid points was implemented and the grid box is big enough to cover the entire surface of the DNA. The ones with lowest binding energy were selected for the detailed analysis and further MD studies. The structures of the activation center model were optimized with Gaussian 09 program and the stationary points were confirmed to be minima by vibrational analysis. All the calculations were carried out at the B3LYP/6-31G*54,55 level of Density Functional Theory (DFT).56,58,59. For the more detailed computional methods, see Note S1-S4.

a reply to: cooperton

well I think one thing we need to consider is that
we have direct objective evidence that computers were designed and built by humans
but we have no evidence that DNA was designed and built by anyone or anything !

we have an entire industry on computers , factories , and subsequent materials industries required to manufacture those "complex" machines
using many millions of people to make it all happen.

where are the manufacturing facilties of DNA ?
unless you are suggesting the entire purpose of the universe is to manufacture DNA
but still doesnt answer the question of who made it , and how !

anyway , if DNA has been made , then where is the makers mark ?
anyone making something so complex , couldnt be Ego less ? they'd need to take owenership of the magical creation surely ?

is the flower of life the makers mark ?

originally posted by: sapien82

so evolution , has nothing to do with sexual reproduction are they not intertwined in that most animals on earth require sexual reproduction to successfully pass on genetic information to the next generation
and thus continue the long marching process of evolution ?

That is not what I said. To nature it is just chemical reactions...to us it is life, sex, reproduction etc... Not all living things need a male female type reproduction. Most life on earth does because it is actually all related. A grape vine is related to humans with in its DNA. Evolution on earth uses this method to evolve by passing genes from one to the other.

well I disagree because everything in the Universe is intimately linked the very conditions which are necessary for life have come about because of the specific physical properties of the Universe itself

But what is life? Is a sun life, is a lit match stick life?

How can sex, mean nothing to evolution when , we can see that evolution occurs by the passing of genetic information from one generation to the next by sexual reproduction over a large period of time

You missed my point... sex is a human term...to the universe it is just a transference of material in a chemical reaction.
When we call something sex, or life we put much more meaning to it than what it actually is.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

well I think one thing we need to consider is that
we have direct objective evidence that computers were designed and built by humans
but we have no evidence that DNA was designed and built by anyone or anything !

we have an entire industry on computers , factories , and subsequent materials industries required to manufacture those "complex" machines
using many millions of people to make it all happen.

where are the manufacturing facilties of DNA ?
unless you are suggesting the entire purpose of the universe is to manufacture DNA
but still doesnt answer the question of who made it , and how !

anyway , if DNA has been made , then where is the makers mark ?
anyone making something so complex , couldnt be Ego less ? they'd need to take owenership of the magical creation surely ?

is the flower of life the makers mark ?

So... Since we can't identify the 'makers', the makers don't exist? Quite the fallacy you have there.

Analogy time again... Imagine I've never seen greek writing before, or arabic writing, or whichever writing you don't recognize. If I'm walking on the beach, and I see such a writing in the sand, it would be wrong to assume;

A) Someone wrote it
B) That it actually IS a language or code of some sort

All because..
1) We don't know how they wrote it, be it with a stick, a stone, with their finger etc.
2) We don't know why they wrote it...

Not buying it...

Short version: Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Materialsl and Methods Materials:
All peptides with purity level above 98% were purchased from Shanghai ZiYu Biotech Co.,Ltd. All DNA oligonucleotides (purified with dual PAGE) were purchased from Invitrogen Life Technologies (Shanghai, China). RNA (with 2’Ome modification) was purchased from Shanghai GenePharma Co., Ltd, and purified with HPLC. Hemin, HEPES/HEPES sodium salt, Na2HPO4/NaH2PO4 salts, H2O2, horseradish peroxidase (HRP), 2,2’-Azino-bis(3- ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulfonic acid) diammonium salt (ABTS2−), Hoechst 33258 dye, 3,3',5,5'- Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB), phenol, o-dianisidine, homovanillic acid, pyrogallol and DMSO were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich.
Activity assay As-received lyophilized DNA or peptides were dissolved in deionized water to make 100 µM or 400 µM stock solution, and stored at -20oC. Repetitive freeze-thawing operations should be avoided. Hemin was dissolved in DMSO to make a 100 nM-10µM stock solution, stored at room temperature. DNA and peptide with required concentrations were mixed with hemin for 20 min. The assembly time was determined by the CD signals of DNA (the conformation was disturbed by the peptide) and UV-vis absorbance of hemin, ensuring the assembly efficiency of the complex. Freshly prepared H2O2 and the reducing substrates were added to the solution containing the assembled complexes, and the time-dependent absorbance change at the reactant or the product was recorded, which were used to calculate the initial catalytic velocity and the maximum conversion efficiency. Each measurement was repeated four times. Characterizations The samples for TEM imaging were prepared by placing 5 µL of the sample solution on a glow-discharged carbon-coated grid (400 meshes, Ted Pella), followed by the wicking away of the unbound sample and solution evaporation. The TEM characterization was conducted using a Hitachi H-7700 microscope operating at 80 kV. The CD spectra were measured by a Jasco J-810 spectropolarimeter. The Ultraviolet-visible absorption spectra were recorded using a UV-VIS spectrophotometer (UV-2450, Shimadzu). The fluorescence was measured with a spectrofluorometry (F-4500, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan) (for Hoechst 33258 dye, λex= 346 nm). Scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) and the elemental mapping were performed in FEI Tecnai F20 using a high-angle annular dark field (HAADF) detector, coupled with an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer (EDX). Zeta-potential measurements were performed using a Malvern Zeta sizer Nano ZS instrument

So how is this an abiogenesis experiment? Serious question, because I have no access to the research article beyond what you sent me.

Look at all those nucleic and peptide polymers required for the experiment. The abiogenesis leap wouldn't have had the convenience of lab manufactured bio-engineered components in the theoretical primordial soup. So I don't see how this is a proper experimental set-up

originally posted by: sapien82

we have an entire industry on computers , factories , and subsequent materials industries required to manufacture those "complex" machines
using many millions of people to make it all happen.

Check out the factory that is each and every one of your cells:



It is beyond a reasonable doubt that these meticulous processes could not have come about through random chance. We have to remove the programming that we were given growing up, life is no accident.

a reply to: cooperton

You asked for the Methods and Materials. You have them. As usual, you completely ignore what the experiment says.
It says that nucleic acids/peptides can self assemble into functional groups with synergistic activity.

I knew, everyone else knows, that you always weasel your way out of acknowledging the evidence. That's okay. Just another nail in the coffin of Creationism.

a reply to: vasaga

The sand analogy is wrong as it would be wrong to assume the written language was natural.

Example.
I've read the Game of Thrones books and watched the tv show, no where is the Dothraki language written.
The Dothraki language is not written.

Here are the symbols of the Dothraki language:

www.google.com... ripts%2Fdothraki.htm&tbnid=0xoxknC5w9ZQ5M&vet=1&docid=ZWIFiBQsyvW_MM&w=600&h=563

So your saying is if you came across a beach and you saw Dothraki written on the sand you'd think... yup that's natural?

Coomba98

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You asked for the Methods and Materials. You have them. As usual, you completely ignore what the experiment says.
It says that nucleic acids/peptides can self assemble into functional groups with synergistic activity.

Haha which is why I said:

"So how is this an abiogenesis experiment? Serious question, because I have no access to the research article beyond what you sent me. "

But from what you did send me, they used already existent peptide and nucleic acid chains to cause the synergistic effect. This nullifies the presupposed primordial soup which wouldn't have had bioengineered polymers.

I knew, everyone else knows, that you always weasel your way out of acknowledging the evidence. That's okay. Just another nail in the coffin of Creationism.

Remember, at the end of the day your theory insists you are a meaningless blip that will one day return to nothingness forever. Consider reconsidering. Or at least don't teach kids the same deranged ideas.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You asked for the Methods and Materials. You have them. As usual, you completely ignore what the experiment says.
It says that nucleic acids/peptides can self assemble into functional groups with synergistic activity.

Haha which is why I said:

"So how is this an abiogenesis experiment? Serious question, because I have no access to the research article beyond what you sent me. "

But from what you did send me, they used already existent peptide and nucleic acid chains to cause the synergistic effect. This nullifies the presupposed primordial soup which wouldn't have had bioengineered polymers.

That statement shows how little you understand about functional complex systems and chemistry in general. Don't you get tired of displaying your ignorance?

From the paper:

The structural and functional complexity and diversity of our catalytic system can be enhanced through appropriate design of the core components or cofactors for effective catalytic bond cleavage or formation reactions. Our work may also provide a laboratory model for a self-assembled prebiotic intermediate between the RNA-based catalytic system and contemporary enzymes.

I knew, everyone else knows, that you always weasel your way out of acknowledging the evidence. That's okay. Just another nail in the coffin of Creationism.

Remember, at the end of the day your theory insists you are a meaningless blip that will one day return to nothingness forever. Consider reconsidering. Or at least don't teach kids the same deranged ideas.

That's your interpretation. It's ridiculous to the point of being ludicrous. Please let me know when you find a biology book, a research paper or some other documentation that agrees with your position. You can't. You make stuff up as you go along.

You lost this battle a long time ago. My intent is to prevent another Jonestown catastrophe orchestrated by a crackpot cult leader. The operational cult of Creationism is on its last legs financially.

Note: Ham is calling the real attendance numbers submitted by Ark Encounter and obtained by The Freedom From Religion Foundation via an open records request “Fake News,” a tactic often deployed by Trump, who regularly labels legitimate news that makes him look bad “Fake News.”

However, the fact that Ham is being deceitful and deceptive should come as no surprise. His entire career as a Christian Creationist is built upon deception and willful ignorance. Indeed, Ham’s Ark Encounter is a Christian fundamentalist project based on discredited science and a literal interpretation of Genesis.

The Bible-based theme park is designed to be an exercise in Christian propaganda: a deplorable attempt to deceive children and others by denying the scientific reality of biological evolution and promoting Christian mythology as scientific fact. In essence, the conservative Christian theme park is dedicated to indoctrinating children with ridiculous and discredited claims from the dubious field of “creation science,” claims such as the earth is only 6,000-years-old, that human beings and dinosaurs lived on the earth at the same time, and that the story of Noah’s Ark is true.

Sorry, but you won't get your "Hamtown".

originally posted by: vasaga
Analogy time again... Imagine I've never seen greek writing before, or arabic writing, or whichever writing you don't recognize. If I'm walking on the beach, and I see such a writing in the sand, it would be wrong to assume;

LMAO! You love your false analogies. I think I need another vacation from here. I feel like my IQ lowers every time I read this type of nonsense.

"How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?"


As the OP, and after due consideration of the opinions so far expressed - Let me surmise my conclusion:

!. Evoulution does not explain male and female - But then again what does Evolution really explain ???

2. As to 'Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Varisations?' - That's an assumption, two sexes may breed
- But they do not create.

Genetic variations are now being created by a Chiniese sceintist - Up to and before this point it may as well have been
'Aliens' from another world engaged in an experiment - And why they are doing this and what the expected
outcome may be - For that you will have to ask them.

- AlienView

a reply to: AlienView

"Pretend I'm an alien from a species of beings that never saw biological life - Explain it to me Human - Whys do you exist ?"

Then how would you even recognize such as life?

The problem where life is concerned is that we are only really beginning to scratch the surface where our understanding of what constitutes such is concerned.