How do mutations code sequence to symbols?

originally posted by: cooperton
Stop sinning and you'll realize how great the design actually is.

What has that got to do with with anything Your subjective view of morality has no basis on this discussion.

a reply to: neoholographic

Ok. Explain then, how your intelligent designer of DNA decided to include male nipples? Why? WHat purpose?

If i were designing a website and one section had car insurance and there was a little icon you could click to show you details about your car, that’s cool. It’s functional, it’s relational to the context.

If i then had another page about house insurance but left the car icon there, because it was part of the page’s inherent design, BUT removed the functionality — no software engineer in their right mind would say that was an intelligent design. It was stupid, cruft left over.

How come your intelligent designer left male nipples in?

Why would your intelligent designer make sex so inefficient? Why even have 2 genders?? Surely a singular one which reproduces asexually is more efficient.

Again, you can argue all you want for you God or intelligently designer, but he’s a bad designer if he created DNA.

originally posted by: noonebutme

What has that got to do with with anything Your subjective view of morality has no basis on this discussion.

Epigenetic feedback mechanisms change as a result of behavior. You claim the human body isn't that great, and I suppose it's because you aren't using it right. We are in charge of the greatest biological supercomputer ever known.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

A shortened form of the self-splicing ribosomal RNA intervening sequence of Tetrahymena thermophila has enzymatic activity as a poly(cytidylic acid) polymerase [Zaug, A.J. & Cech, T.R. (1986) Science 231, 470-475]. Based on the known properties of this enzyme, a detailed model is developed for the template-dependent synthesis of RNA by an RNA polymerase itself made of RNA. The monomer units for RNA synthesis are tetra- and pentanucleotides of random base sequence. Polymerization occurs in a 5'-to-3' direction, and elongation rates are expected to approach two residues per minute. If the RNA enzyme could use another copy of itself as a template, RNA self-replication could be achieved. Thus, it seems possible that RNA catalysts might have played a part in prebiotic nucleic acid replication, prior to the availability of useful proteins.

Terms like enzyme and catalyst make it clear that this is not self-polymerization... it is catalyzed enzymatically by an RNA polymer.

So yet again, you failed to show an example of monomer self-polymerization. RNA monomers cannot polymerize without a catalyst, which is why abiogenesis is absolutely impossible.

a reply to: cooperton

Poissonian RNA Polymerization
Here we consider a cycle of RNA polymerization by randomly adding activated monomers to an oligomer as a Poisson process, taking an experiment on clay surfaces18 as a model case. Non-RNA nucleic acid analogues may have carried genetic information before the RNA world emerged1, but the formulations below can also be applied to such cases. Let xl be the abundance of l-nt long oligomers. After the injection of activated monomers at the time of initialization (t = 0), evolution of xl is described by the following differential equations:

x˙l+1=κ xl−κ xl+1 ,
(1)
where the dot denotes a time derivative. Here we assume that the coefficient κ (probability of a reaction with a monomer per unit time) does not depend on the oligomer length, which is approximately consistent with the trend found in the experiment18. We consider initial conditions of xl = 0 for l ≥ 2, and x1 can be approximated to be constant in the early phase. The second term on the right hand side can be neglected when xl+1 ≪ xl. Solving the equations iteratively under these conditions, the abundance xl at a time t is obtained as

xl=pl−1r(l−1)! x1,

where pr ≡ κ t is the reaction probability with a monomer up to the time t. A similar result is obtained by considering the Poisson distribution with an expectation value of pr; the only difference is a factor of exp(−pr) that is not important at pr ≲ 1. We should consider only the regime of pr ≲ 1, because by the time t ~ κ−1, a significant fraction of activated monomers are lost by the reactions, and hence the approximation of constant x1 is no longer valid and efficient polymerization is not expected beyond this point. If activated monomers are lost earlier by some other processes (e.g. hydrolysis), pr would be smaller than unity.

In RNA oligomerization on clay surfaces, the coefficient κ should be proportional to the concentration of activated aqueous monomer concentration of ~ 0.01 M (=mol/L adsorbed on the clay surface. This clay-phase monomer concentration increases with that in aqueous phase, but according to the Langmuir adsorption isotherm, it saturates when the adsorbed monomer abundance reaches that of the exchangeable cations on clay surface. In the experiment18, montmorillonite has 0.8 mmol exchangeable cations per gram, and it starts to saturate at an aqueous monomer concentration of ~ 0.01 M (=mol/L). At the saturated clay-phase monomer concentration, the reaction rate is κ ~ 1 h−1, and thus pr ~ 1 is reached within a few hours, which is much shorter than the hydrolysis time scale of activated monomers. Aqueous monomer concentration needs to be higher than a certain level to keep κ large enough for pr ~ 1, and this may be achieved at some points during a cycle, for example, by variable amount of water expected in dry-wet cycles around warm little ponds29.

The End.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Poissonian RNA Polymerization
Here we consider a cycle of RNA polymerization by randomly adding activated monomers to an oligomer as a Poisson process, taking an experiment on clay surfaces18 as a model case. Non-RNA nucleic acid analogues may have carried genetic information before the RNA world emerged1, but the formulations below can also be applied to such cases. Let xl be the abundance of l-nt long oligomers. After the injection of activated monomers at the time of initialization (t = 0), evolution of xl is described by the following differential equations....

This might be your worst attempt yet. Do you even read these papers you post? You are embarrassing yourself

"Here we consider a cycle of RNA polymerization by randomly adding activated monomers to an oligomer as a Poisson process, taking an experiment on clay surfaces18 as a model case."

'model case' means they didn't actually conduct a physical study. It is theoretical. I know it's tough figuring out that santa claus (abiogenesis) isn't real, but someone has to break it to you eventually. Since RNA or amino acid monomers do not self-polymerize, the random-chance theory is bunk

originally posted by: cooperton
You claim the human body isn't that great,

No I didn’t. I said, *IF* it was designed by some made up god or some galactic intelligence, THEN it’s a pretty poor example of such an intelligent being. But as we know, through stack loads of evidence, it’s the result of billions of years of evolution, it’s stupendously incredible.

and I suppose it's because you aren't using it right.

Ok, childish...

We are in charge of the greatest biological supercomputer ever known.

I 100% agree.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Poissonian RNA Polymerization
Here we consider a cycle of RNA polymerization by randomly adding activated monomers to an oligomer as a Poisson process, taking an experiment on clay surfaces18 as a model case. Non-RNA nucleic acid analogues may have carried genetic information before the RNA world emerged1, but the formulations below can also be applied to such cases. Let xl be the abundance of l-nt long oligomers. After the injection of activated monomers at the time of initialization (t = 0), evolution of xl is described by the following differential equations....

This might be your worst attempt yet. Do you even read these papers you post? You are embarrassing yourself

"Here we consider a cycle of RNA polymerization by randomly adding activated monomers to an oligomer as a Poisson process, taking an experiment on clay surfaces18 as a model case."

'model case' means they didn't actually conduct a physical study. It is theoretical. I know it's tough figuring out that santa claus (abiogenesis) isn't real, but someone has to break it to you eventually. Since RNA or amino acid monomers do not self-polymerize, the random-chance theory is bunk

Oh you mean like that time scientists conducted a physical study of intelligent design by sitting down with a literal god/alien to be interviewed while taking blood and tissue samples for analysis?

/s

a reply to: noonebutme

I figured you would respond with the same asinine argument because you don't understand what's being debated. This isn't even a debate. I post published papers and experiments that destroy this whole argument and you respond with the same argument because you can't debate the specifics because you probably don't understand them.

Here's more evidence of an intelligently designed code. ADAPTION.

There's no evidence in the fossil record or anywhere else of the environment selecting beneficial traits for an organism. A recent experiment showed this:

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island The changes should take millions of years-but these creatures are doing it in mere decades.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

You know why it evolved so rapidly? It's because we're designed to evolve the traits that we need to survive. The intelligent Designer has downloded the information needed to evolve and survive in different environments.

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF AN ORGANISM TRYING TO ADAPT TO THEIR ENVIRONMENTS IN ANY NATURAL OR RANDOM WAY!

We're Designed to adapt to different environments and the information needed to survive is available to us in the genome.

There's always this one to one correspondence between the organism needing x trait to survive and then that specific trait evolves.

With something natural and random, a, b, c, d.....x, y, z traits evolve and then over hundreds of thousands to millions of years, one of these traits just happen to magically be the right trait needed and is naturally selected via reproduction.

This is why they thought the lizard would take millions of years to evolve new traits to survive not 36 years. Where are all of the dead lizards that evolved the wrong traits that didn't help the lizard survive? Where is the evolution? There's no evidence that beneficial traits are selected against neutral or harmful mutations. Darwin said this:

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.” ― Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species

Darwin expected to see all of these "intermediate varieties" because his theory was, environmental pressures cause random mutations to occur, these mutations reach the environment, once these mutations reach the environment then nature selects via reproduction which traits are beneficial, harmful or neutral.

THERE"S ZERO EVIDENCE ANYWHERE THAT SUPPORTS THIS NARRATIVE!

This shows a natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. Here's more from the article.

Pod Mrcaru, for example, had an abundance of plants for the primarily insect-eating lizards to munch on. Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.

Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves—muscles between the large and small intestine—that slowed down food digestion in fermenting chambers, which allowed their bodies to process the vegetation's cellulose into volatile fatty acids.

"They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

The lizard also dropped some of its territorial defenses, the authors concluded. Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said.

"That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is," he said.

api.nationalgeographic.com...

What happened is that the lizard was put into a new environment and it evolved a new structure that it needed to survive in 36 short years!

We see the same thing with sickle cell. When humans are in an environment where Malaria is prevalent, a specific point mutation that switched Glutamic Acid to Valine occurs that gives humans a benefit that allows to survive and reproduce. There's no evidence in the fossil record or anywhere else of organisms selecting agains neutral or harmful mutations.

What we see is an organism needs x traits to survive in an environment and they evolve x traits. Look at extremophiles! The design is brilliant and it's designed to adapt to the environment. This is why in 36 short years the lizard evolved brand new structures,, not the million year fantasy of Darwin because the brand new structure would have to select against a gazillion other structures and win out in the environment via reproduction.

It's like a thermostat in your home. When you set it on 76 degrees, it's designed to maintain that 76 degrees. It detects the environment and when the temp drops below 76 degrees, it clicks the furnace on and heats up the environment.

The intelligently designed code, finds the beneficial mutations it needs and that trait reaches the environment. It's a code designed to respond to it's environment. This is why we see extremophiles adapting to environments where we thought life couldn't exist.

Now I know you will not respond with any evidence or with any sensical opposition to what I'm saying. You will just resort to the same asinine argument about bad design because you can't debate the issue.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Oh you mean like that time scientists conducted a physical study of intelligent design by sitting down with a literal god/alien to be interviewed while taking blood and tissue samples for analysis?

/s

I assume this is your way of conceding that nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize. Especially in water.

This ruins the possibility of abiogenesis.

Therefore, Your nihilist world has no possible avenue for life to come to be through random chance. It's over. You can continue living your faith in nothing, but never call it science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Oh you mean like that time scientists conducted a physical study of intelligent design by sitting down with a literal god/alien to be interviewed while taking blood and tissue samples for analysis?

/s

I assume this is your way of conceding that nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize. Especially in water.

This ruins the possibility of abiogenesis.

Therefore, Your nihilist world has no possible avenue for life to come to be through random chance. It's over. You can continue living your faith in nothing, but never call it science.

I assume this is your way of conceding there has never been any actual scientific study of the divine, such as specimen analysis and taxonomic classification and genetic decoding? Because that would require a physical substance to measure. Like polymers & enzymes that have zero indication of divine meddling.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I assume this is your way of conceding there has never been any actual scientific study of the divine, such as specimen analysis and taxonomic classification and genetic decoding? Because that would require a physical substance to measure. Like polymers & enzymes that have zero indication of divine meddling.

Ahh yes, because the genetic code doesn't give you a good enough hint that there is a Coder.

I love how every time you are faced with the futility of evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, you resort to attacking other's beliefs. If your belief in evolution had any strength whatsoever, you wouldn't have to resort to such cowardly tactics. The fact that evolutionary theory is wrong is good news, it means you guys can leave behind the dead-end theory and begin seeking real knowledge.

originally posted by: Phantom423
You're a hopeless idiot, Coop.

No I do have hope. You're the one believing and preaching a hopeless, meaningless mutant monkey theory. Even when you're faced with the impossibility of various facets of these theories, you stubbornly ignore it because you never want to admit you're wrong. Such blind zeal is true hopelessness, and makes you incapable of growing. Just admit nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize... It will feel good to be honest.

I really do hope the best for you, but it is up to you whether or not you want to open your heart.

a reply to: cooperton

So is your God actively rewriting the Covid virus variants right now? I mean, the theory of evolution easily explains the new variants we’re seeing.

Are you saying your god or intelligent designer is actively writing code to kill us?

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: cooperton

So is your God actively rewriting the Covid virus variants right now? I mean, the theory of evolution easily explains the new variants we’re seeing.

Are you saying your god or intelligent designer is actively writing code to kill us?

Because pestilence wasn't a part of the original model, it is related to our choice to deviate from the source code.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I assume this is your way of conceding there has never been any actual scientific study of the divine, such as specimen analysis and taxonomic classification and genetic decoding? Because that would require a physical substance to measure. Like polymers & enzymes that have zero indication of divine meddling.

Ahh yes, because the genetic code doesn't give you a good enough hint that there is a Coder.

I love how every time you are faced with the futility of evolutionary theory and abiogenesis, you resort to attacking other's beliefs. If your belief in evolution had any strength whatsoever, you wouldn't have to resort to such cowardly tactics. The fact that evolutionary theory is wrong is good news, it means you guys can leave behind the dead-end theory and begin seeking real knowledge.

Attacking you would be calling you an idiot or saying that your congregation are a pestilence on society, or that your sacred texts should be burned & temples torn down to eradicate the ideas you promote. I'm just talking about how ironic it is that you continue to hurl pitiful arrows from a sunken ship you call a submarine.

And no, there is no genetic code in the sense that a book of mystic secrets can be unlocked with the right decoder ring. There's no manufacturer label, no warranty note, no phone number to call if somebody wants to talk with the production or maintenance staff. There's no treasure map or instructions of any kind, so if there IS a programmer then they absolutely desperately didn't want us to know about them. More likely they simply don't exist.

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: cooperton

So is your God actively rewriting the Covid virus variants right now? I mean, the theory of evolution easily explains the new variants we’re seeing.

Are you saying your god or intelligent designer is actively writing code to kill us?

The ant farm has overpopulated and infested the basement! Activate the fumigation protocols!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: cooperton

So is your God actively rewriting the Covid virus variants right now? I mean, the theory of evolution easily explains the new variants we’re seeing.

Are you saying your god or intelligent designer is actively writing code to kill us?

Because pestilence wasn't a part of the original model, it is related to our choice to deviate from the source code.

Translation: god sent covid-19 to punish humankind for our egregious misdeeds

a reply to: cooperton


Facts don't cease to exist because you ignore them. There are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and over 200,000 research articles on every topic that you have attempted to comment on. I suggested previously that you write letters to the authors and let them know where they went wrong.

You describe things as "impossible" when they have clearly happened. When someone asks you what state you live in, I suggest you respond "DENIAL". It's a very sad world you've constructed for yourself. This is what cultism does to people. It destroys all reality and replaces it with delusion. I'm absolutely certain you can't see the difference.