How do mutations code sequence to symbols?

originally posted by: Phantom423
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.

Yet none describe an actual instance of nucleotide monomer self-polymerization.

I suggested previously that you write letters to the authors and let them know where they went wrong.

They won't wrong in not addressing the fact that nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize.

You describe things as "impossible" when they have clearly happened.

Show me one example then.

What is truly interesting here, is how the most coherent and definitive evidence of intelligent design is apparently self polymerization. Generally an engineer who is interested in broadcasting their product makes a more significant display of their abilities. It's called marketing and there's no real marketing here, just a treasure hunt where you have to prove the junk you unearthed is actually priceless antiques from a lost civilization. So far, no sale. We need a lot more than just cryptic genetic machinery on a microscopic scale to appreciate the calling card of a divine architect creating the human race.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Why would a creator have to advertise? It's all about faith, isn't it?
No need for evidence. No need to convince. Perhaps seeking evidence demonstrates a lack of faith?

(No, it's not an original thought.)

a reply to: cooperton


You have all the examples a sane person would need, even one that understands zip about experimental science. Again, I suggest you write the authors a letter and tell them to change the title of their article. Make sure they change their results too.

All the data posted PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that nucleotides and amino acids polymerize in water. You don't understand the data or the experimental setup. It's there in black and white.

I suggest you get this bundle from Amazon:


Biochemistry For Dummies Paperback – Illustrated, August 9, 2011
www.amazon.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TzarChasm

Why would a creator have to advertise? It's all about faith, isn't it?
No need for evidence. No need to convince. Perhaps seeking evidence demonstrates a lack of faith?

(No, it's not an original thought.)

The abundance of mundane human solicitors who wield no extraordinary gifts lends credence to your assessment.

Aren't most of the material we're made of from dying stars? Including the DNA? 🤔

originally posted by: Phantom423
Again, I suggest you write the authors a letter and tell them to change the title of their article.

No it's just you that can't understand them. If you actually would read any of the articles you post it becomes clear very quickly that no nucleotide monomers were self-polymerizing

Make sure they change their results too.

Nah, the lab data is unanimous. Nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize.

All the data posted PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that nucleotides and amino acids polymerize in water.

Dude you are losing it. Hydrolysis is what de-polymerizes amino acid and nucleotide chains. It is called hydrolysis because in the presence of water there will be exergonic de-polymerization.



It is literally the opposite of what you're saying. Saying the reaction can go in reverse and perform a dehydration synthesis reaction in water without the help of an enzyme is possibly the most biochemically incorrect thing I have ever heard.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TzarChasm

Why would a creator have to advertise? It's all about faith, isn't it?

Yeah if only someone were to come in the name of God and perform miracles and conquer death in the name of love, hope and altruism... then I could be convinced.

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

What evidence do you have that this model is part of a plan? Can you point me to the paper describing this persons plan and his supporting docs?

originally posted by: cooperton
Yeah if only someone were to come in the name of God and perform miracles and conquer death in the name of love, hope and altruism... then I could be convinced.

Why not? You’re choosing faith over facts and truth - makes sense for you I suppose.

a reply to: cooperton

You just make it up as you go along. You didn't read the papers. You don't understand chemistry. What you're showing has absolutely nothing to do with monomeric polymerization.

End of message and end of "conversation".

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You just make it up as you go along. You didn't read the papers. You don't understand chemistry. What you're showing has absolutely nothing to do with monomeric polymerization.

End of message and end of "conversation".

You poor thing... You said that:

"All the data posted PROVES beyond any reasonable doubt that nucleotides and amino acids polymerize in water."

Yet that simple chart from some basic chemistry lesson is showing the exact opposite. Nucleotides and amino acides de-polymerize in water.



You say you have a scientific background, but you're more stubborn than anything so you will even refuse basic chemistry to avoid admitting you are wrong. In the chart, water is shown to help facilitate the act of de-polymerization, and for this reason is called hydrolysis (meaning split with water). Therefore, water is counter-productive to a nucleotide or amino acid polymerization. Notice how none of your friends are helping? Because they realize you're wrong too.

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah if only someone were to come in the name of God and perform miracles and conquer death in the name of love, hope and altruism... then I could be convinced

Doesn't look to me like death was conquered. Quite the opposite.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You just make it up as you go along. You didn't read the papers. You don't understand chemistry. What you're showing has absolutely nothing to do with monomeric polymerization.

End of message and end of "conversation".

Thats precisely why I stopped arguing with him. He doesn't understand chemistry doesn't bother to read information and just trolls you. Thats why i wont even respond to him anymore not worth the effort.

originally posted by: dragonridr

Thats precisely why I stopped arguing with him. He doesn't understand chemistry doesn't bother to read information and just trolls you. Thats why i wont even respond to him anymore not worth the effort.

Where specifically was I wrong in my assessment?

If I were wrong about some scientific semantics, Phage would be hounding me. But I am right (and if I were wrong I would admit it). Nucleotide and amino acid polymerization is unfavorable in water. Water causes hydrolysis and results in de-polymerization of nucleotide and amino acid chains.

The problem is you and phantom hate science. You just love being right. So now since you love being right more than science, you are at an unfortunate point in the road where you must resort to insult rather than admitting you're wrong. It shows you're not objective and are doing a disservice to the scientific field.

a reply to: neoholographic

Discussing Richard Lenski’s E. coli Long Term Evolution Experiment, Michael Behe explains:

. . . the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions. There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell.

...
Or consider the scientific debate over Michael Behe’s book Darwin Devolves which came out in February 2019 and argued that evolutionary adaptations typically break or diminish function at the molecular level. ...

As we dug into other criticisms, Behe’s arguments stood the test at almost every turn. Then last year, Behe’s arguments were further vindicated when a Harvard geneticist wrote in Current Biology that “the majority of the mutations that lead to adaptation are loss-of-function mutations that impair or eliminate the function of genes rather than gain-of-function mutations that increase or qualitatively alter the function of proteins.” ...

Source: I’m Excited to Return to Discovery Institute to Find Intelligent Design Stronger Than Ever! | Evolution News

a reply to: whereislogic

changed my mind not worth arguing we seem to be in a circuar argument at this point

a reply to: neoholographic

Here's a quote from blind Darwinist and athiest Richard Dawkins.

“Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

The word "appearance" is doing all the work here. Dawkins goes on to explain that that appearance is illusory - it is not designed and has no purpose other than what WE give it.

Cherry-picking phrases that are introductory to a discussion without including the discussion, or even acknowledging it, is intellectually dishonest.

Especially when you then use it to support for your own argument which is the exact opposite of the original intent.

what i really want to know is if we were designed by god, why did he make shrimps able to see more colours than us?
Does he love shrimps more?
Are shrimps a more perfect representation of the image of god?

a reply to: neoholographic

So we can quantify intelligence.

No, we really cannot. And you just spent several sentences showing why.

IQ actually has an absurd definition: IQ is the 'thing' that IQ tests measure.

Psychologists have spent lifetimes trying to figure out something better. Standardized tests measure something, maybe, but nobody knows what that is. I'm not saying they are useless or dangerous - I'm saying they don't have much to do with anything really outside of identifying extreme outliers in very large cultural groups.

A famous children's IQ test had you look at 5 or 6 drawings of men doing things, and asked to identify the one that showed a man working. Several kids at one (predominately black) school lost points for their answer. They were expected to answer 'the one with the man at the desk writing', but they answered 'the one playing baseball'. Their dad's were professional baseball players and that was their experience of men working. That test was in vogue for years (I think I took it as a kid), and those and similar questions did contribute to papers that held that black kids were less intelligent that white kids.

Cultural and societal norms have a huge impact on how intelligence is perceived. Standardized tests cannot possibly capture a 'standard' reference value for some vaguely understood concept we call IQ. You need a customized test for every one on the planet, or certainly for every cultural group on the planet. And then you would need a way to calibrate each of those tests.

'Quantify Intelligence'? Its beyond absurd.

originally posted by: whereislogic

... Michael Behe explains:
. . . the bottom line is that the great majority of even beneficial mutations have turned out to be due to the breaking, degrading, or minor tweaking of pre-existing genes or regulatory regions. There have been no mutations or series of mutations identified that appear to be on their way to constructing elegant new molecular machinery of the kind that fills every cell.

That part I've marked in red? That is a list of mutations that Behe goes on to say in the next sentence don't exist. Which is it?