Evolution is a product of encoded information not anything natural

a reply to: SigmaXSquared

OP is garbage. I mean sure you can speculate about everything, but there's a huge area full of possibilities because "funzies" or "engineered cattle" are really not all that could be what is

a reply to: Terpene

I am now and thank you for the link, a great thread!
That thread was also around the time when I was learning about the EU theory, which I still believe is highly viable, not just on a cosmic scale but down the cellular as well.

The EU concept demonstrated in the Primeval code along with ideas of genetic repairs make me wonder...
If, as some people report after being struck by lightening, there can be new cellular memories, new skills and interests, perhaps there is a way to intentionally tap into these phenomenon and create a new form of health care.

There are many reports of patients who utilize BCI and other electronic neuro stimulant devices, showing signs of healing spinal and brain injuries that were once considered permanent. Perhaps the combination of EU and Genetics can "perform miracles"

Like the concept of "grounding" but with greater magnification

a reply to: datguy

Yes, there's other factors at play like the environment and I never said anything about being predestined or preplanned, that's language that you're using that has nothing to do with encoded information.

For instance, Facebook is designed by code but the way that people interact with Facebook is natural. The code on Facebook doesn't pre plan or predestine how people interact with Facebook.

This is part of the Facebook code for the homepage.

html id="facebook" class="_9dls __fb-light-mode _8ykn" lang="en" dir="ltr">/******/ (() => [ // webpackBootstrap
/******/ "use strict";
var __webpack_exports__ = [];

No matter how I interact with Facebook, I can't change this code. Everyone has different Facebook pages with different backgrounds and different friends and photos but the same code. The code didn't predestine how people interact with Facebook. The code just allowed them to interact with Facebook.

This is just like evolution. The encoding/decoding system and error correction allow different species to interact with the environment in different ways.

No matter how we interact with the environment, the code stays the same. It codes for the same 20 amino acids in the same way and codes the same way for start and stop codons. It controls gene expression the same way through correlations between transcription factors and the DNA polymer. Transcription and translation work the same way. Transfer RNA's attaching amino acids to a polypeptide chain works the same way.

Let me say that again:

No matter how we interact with the environment, the code stays the same. It codes for the same 20 amino acids in the same way and codes the same way for start and stop codons. It controls gene expression the same way through correlations between transcription factors and the DNA polymer. Transcription and translation work the same way. Transfer RNA's attaching amino acids to a polypeptide chain works the same way.

What Darwinist did was look at these natural and random interactions and built a theory around it but Darwin didn't know about the supercomputer in the cell and all of the encoded information.

This also seems to occur because of non-random mutations:

New study provides first evidence of non-random mutations in DNA
www.abovetopsecret.com...

A second study shows that mutations are not random
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Show me where the code has changed. For billions of years the same code has been transcribed and translated from the gene to the polypeptide change with error correction to protect that code. No error correction no evolution.

a reply to: neoholographic

Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.
It seems to me that the basis for your entire argument is that God created our DNA, the entire mainstream proposition and concept of "God" IS predestination, Prophecy and the like.

Not only HAS the code changed over the eons of humanities existense but it even changes throughout our finite lives, even the food we eat "changes the code"
Even the slightest change in just one of the millions of base pairs constitutes a change

How have we changed since our species first appeared?

When humans started to spread to different parts of the world about 100,000 years ago, they encountered a variety of different climatic conditions and evolved new physical adaptations more suitable to those new climates.

Recent DNA studies (since 2007) confirm that genetic traits have changed or adapted to new environments during this time.

DNA changes predict longevity

Our DNA changes as we age. Some of these changes are epigenetic—they modify DNA without altering the genetic sequence itself. Epigenetic changes affect how genes are turned on and off

Massive genetic study shows how humans are evolving
How Diet Can Change Your DNA

Here are some quotes from the articles that you linked to.

The new finding does not disprove or discredit the theory of evolution, and the researchers said randomness still plays a big role in mutations.

mutations are what fuel evolution by natural selection and become more or less common in a population based on how they affect the carrier's ability to survive.

In addition, comparing the rate of genetic mutation in the genomic structure of Thale Cress to any mutations in the human genome is, for lack of a better term, elementary. Even the scientists admit...

more research into animal genomes is needed before researchers can tell if the same non-random mutations occur in humans. "Our discoveries were made in plants and do not give rise to new treatments,

Again, these changes do not dictate that this "error correction" does not exist but my question still stands

originally posted by: datguy
a reply to: neoholographic

How does this "intelligent design" know which changes to "error correct" and which changes to allow in order to promote survival?

The problem with this line of thinking, which is compelling, is that at some point it all had to start. Even the encoder. Or you believe that the encoder has always been. Questions we will unlikely ever see answered.

a reply to: datguy

What are you not understanding?

You keep debating against something nobody is claiming. You said::

It seems to me that the basis for your entire argument is that God created our DNA, the entire mainstream proposition and concept of "God" IS predestination, Prophecy and the like.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said. Who said anything about predestination and prophecy??

You said:

Not only HAS the code changed

Where has the genetic code changed?



This is the genetic code. It has coded for the same amino acids for billions of years. The same redundancy for billions of years. The same 3 letter codons for b illions of years. The same transcription and translation for billions of years. The same proofreading for billions of years.

Let me repeat:

This is the genetic code. It has coded for the same amino acids for billions of years. The same redundancy for billions of years. The same 3 letter codons for b illions of years. The same transcription and translation for billions of years. The same proofreading for billions of years.

Stop debating against things nobody has said. Where did I say anything about predestination and prophecy. Now answer the question:

Not only HAS the code changed

Where has the genetic code changed?

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: SigmaXSquared

OP is garbage. I mean sure you can speculate about everything, but there's a huge area full of possibilities because "funzies" or "engineered cattle" are really not all that could be what is

evolution or engineered cattle, are the only options

originally posted by: ARM1986
The problem with this line of thinking, which is compelling, is that at some point it all had to start. Even the encoder. Or you believe that the encoder has always been. Questions we will unlikely ever see answered.

Why does the encoder or God have to have a start?

The Bible tells us God is outside of our perception of time, so why would He need to have a start?

We're beings stuck in 3 dimensions of space and access to only 1 dimension of time. Einstein told us the way we see a distinction between past, present and future is an illusion. So things for us in 3D space needs a before and after in time but why is God limited to 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time? I don't know anyone the believes in God that says He's stuck in 1 dimension of time like we are.

a reply to: neoholographic

Interesting post. So are you saying the storage medium and the encoded information are separate?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: datguy

What are you not understanding?

As should be evident in the question I repeatedly ask, How does this "intelligent design" choose which mutations to allow and which to "error correct" to ensure survival.

Its a pretty non combative inquiry based on the topic you choose to present, its ok if you don't have an answer, I understand.

You keep debating against something nobody is claiming. You said::

It seems to me that the basis for your entire argument is that God created our DNA, the entire mainstream proposition and concept of "God" IS predestination, Prophecy and the like.

This has nothing to do with anything I've said. Who said anything about predestination and prophecy??

Its a correlation I drew due to comment YOU made in the previous thread YOU authored and linked in your last reply
notice where my statement was "it seems to me"
Im not trying to debate anything I'm trying to understand the topic you CHOOSE to present. Do I really need to go back and quote your own words from your own threads?

You said:

Not only HAS the code changed

Where has the genetic code changed?

Well if you read the links in my last reply you could see that im not the only one who understands that the code does change.
In addition, I could again go back into YOUR threads and quote YOUR words on the changes to the code. The example i will give here is in YOUR discussion of the mutations in the malaria genes. shall we check with Webster on the definition of "mutation"?

Sorry you think my inquiries are unfounded or a form of debate but I still really want to know how this "intelligent design" picks and chooses which mutations to "error correct" to ensure survival

a reply to: datguy

You said:

As should be evident in the question I repeatedly ask, How does this "intelligent design" choose which mutations to allow and which to "error correct" to ensure survival.

Asked and answered but you don't understand how error correcting codes work. I said this:

That's not the way error correcting codes work. For instance, you couldn't have search engines or browsers without error correcting codes because the codes would be overrun with errors every 5 minutes.

Say the Code in DNA is copied a million times, without error correcting codes, you may get a 70-80% error rate. Nothing would be able to evolve because DNA would be overrun with errors.

You add error correcting codes and your error rate is reduced to 5%.

Now you have 950,000 healthy code and 50,000 codes with errors. The errors spread throughout the population and the healthy code can grow and spread through reproduction.

This answered your question.

Error correcting codes wouldn't decide which mutations to let through. As the code is copied, errors will occur throughout the code. You then reduce the overall error rate with error correcting codes.

You said:

Well if you read the links in my last reply you could see that im not the only one who understands that the code does change.

Show me in your links where it says the genetic code has changed.



Here's the genetic code, show me exactly where it has changed.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: datguy

You said:

As should be evident in the question I repeatedly ask, How does this "intelligent design" choose which mutations to allow and which to "error correct" to ensure survival.

Asked and answered but you don't understand how error correcting codes work. I said this:

That's not the way error correcting codes work. For instance, you couldn't have search engines or browsers without error correcting codes because the codes would be overrun with errors every 5 minutes.

Say the Code in DNA is copied a million times, without error correcting codes, you may get a 70-80% error rate. Nothing would be able to evolve because DNA would be overrun with errors.

You add error correcting codes and your error rate is reduced to 5%.

Now you have 950,000 healthy code and 50,000 codes with errors. The errors spread throughout the population and the healthy code can grow and spread through reproduction.

This answered your question.

Error correcting codes wouldn't decide which mutations to let through. As the code is copied, errors will occur throughout the code. You then reduce the overall error rate with error correcting codes.

This only partially answered my question, it still does not show HOW the code chooses which errors to correct. again, if you don't have that answer I understand, it is a complex subject. I just assumed that the passion with which you present the topic you might have some insight here due to the research you have done.
As was mentioned in one of the articles you linked, in one of your previous threads, the mutations (or "changes") in the code occur more often within non gene transferring sequences which I took to mean that these mutations (or "changes") do not affect hereditary genes that would impact evolution or survival. So does this error correction know which parts of the DNA are for gene transference and which are not? How then do we humans (as compared to wheat) end up with so called genetic dispositions to mutations (changes) such as cancer

Unless your intent is to show that it is random selection?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: datguy

Say the Code in DNA is copied a million times, without error correcting codes, you may get a 70-80% error rate. Nothing would be able to evolve because DNA would be overrun with errors.

Wouldn't this presume that the error isn't the evolution, and in such prevent potential evolution?

a reply to: datguy

Now you're just trolling. You keep trying to debate against things I never said because you have no argument. You still haven't answered as to how has the genetic code changed. You said:

This only partially answered my question, it still does not show HOW the code chooses which errors to correct.

Show me my previous post where I said error correcting codes choose which mutation to correct. Quote me.

You also keep dodging. I have asked you 3 times where the genetic code has changed. You said:

Well if you read the links in my last reply you could see that im not the only one who understands that the code does change.



Either show where the genetic code has changed or admit you were wrong.

a reply to: neoholographic

I'm sorry your getting hung up on terminology, mutations happen that is known, another term for mutation is change, it happens, I tried to show this in my last response but you insist on accusing me of doing things that aren't true.
Again I'm sorry you think my inquiries are trolling, perhaps you should be more precise and in depth in creating your posts if you are unwilling to discuss them with people who want to learn.

I never said, that you stated the error correcting codes choose which mutation (change) to correct.
I am asking out of curiosity, again presuming that you may have insight due to the research you have done, as I stated in my last reply.

why are you so angry that I am asking questions?

a reply to: datguy

You said:

I never said, that you stated the error correcting codes choose which mutation (change) to correct.

You said earlier:

How does this "intelligent design" choose which mutations to allow and which to "error correct"

This is excatly what you said. Iwas just pointing out that this has nothing to do with the post. You also said:

Well if you read the links in my last reply you could see that im not the only one who understands that the code does change.

Also:

Not only HAS the code changed

We can't have an honest debate when you can't acknowledge you were wrong. If you weren't wrong, show me where the genetic code has changed. It's been coding for the same 20 amino acids for billions of years.



Like I said, if you're not trolling admit you were wrong. If you understand that you were wrong it should answer all of your questions.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: datguy

You said:

I never said, that you stated the error correcting codes choose which mutation (change) to correct.

You said earlier:

How does this "intelligent design" choose which mutations to allow and which to "error correct"

Yes I said these things but I never accused you of stating them, they are questions I formulated based on the material you presented.

This is excatly what you said. Iwas just pointing out that this has nothing to do with the post. You also said:

Well if you read the links in my last reply you could see that im not the only one who understands that the code does change.

Also:

Not only HAS the code changed

It has everything to do with the post, how can you not see that?
With out these changes in the code otherwise referred to as "mutations" there would be no need to have or even create a post which includes concepts of "error correcting code" which is a concept you introduced in the OP.
In order for me to show that the code changes I would have to present every single instance of genetic mutation, is that really necessary?

We can't have an honest debate when you can't acknowledge you were wrong. If you weren't wrong, show me where the genetic code has changed. It's been coding for the same 20 amino acids for billions of years.

Like I said, if you're not trolling admit you were wrong. If you understand that you were wrong it should answer all of your questions.

I don't see how asking questions to learn is being wrong. It is you who are wrong in your interpretation of my words and no matter how many times or methods I use to try to get us beyond that misunderstanding and into a discussion on the topic you presented you continue to assail me with baseless accusations of something which is evident that I didn't do
AND ill say again... I am not trying to debate you I am trying to learn from you, but your arrogance is too much for you to see that.

Are you seriously going to derail your own thread on the basis that you cant understand that mutation and change mean the same thing

a reply to: datguy

What are you talking about? Did you even read the OP? I said:

If I say, XTG is coded for the word dog and I sent XTG through a communication channel where it will be copied, there will be errors. In computers it's called bit flips, in DNA it's called point mutations.

I pointed this out in the OP! Did you even read what you're responding to?

You also haven't admitted you were wrong. Yoiu keep dodging this, because it answers all of your questions so you must be trolling.

People that don't even know about genetics will know the genetic code hasn't changed for billions of years but you can't even admit you're wrong when you said:

Not only HAS the code changed



The fact that the genetic code hasn't changed for billions of years answers all of your questions this is why you will not acknowledge you were wrong. This is why I said you're trolling.

a reply to: neoholographic

then what are mutations in the genetic code?

and why is there an error correcting program if it doesnt change?

a reply to: datguy

You said:

then what are mutations in the genetic code?

There are no mutations in the genetic code. This is why I keep saying the genetic code doesn't change. Here's more:

A mutation is a change in the DNA sequence of an organism. Mutations can result from errors in DNA replication during cell division, exposure to mutagens or a viral infection. Germline mutations (that occur in eggs and sperm) can be passed on to offspring, while somatic mutations (that occur in body cells) are not passed on.
www.genome.gov...

A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence that can occur as the sequence is copied and that's why there's redundancy in the genetic code.

Mutations are happening in our cells all the time, but almost none of these affect our health. This is very different than what we often see in science fiction in movies. In real life, a mutation is never so beneficial that it turns a person into a superhero or does something bizarre like cause them to grow wings. There are many reasons that mutations usually don't have major consequences. One reason is that our cells have very sophisticated machinery for repairing mutations very quickly. So there's not enough time for them to cause problems.
www.genome.gov...

Very Sophisticated Machinery for Repairing Mutations!

Where does this machinery come from? The code that hasn't changed for billions of years.



I keep saying just admit you were wrong. If you do that then all of your questions are answered.

a reply to: neoholographic

so now I am just confused even more, but I do see where our disconnect is. You are referring to the individual combinations of nucleotides where I am referring the more complex and complete DNA strand.
As someone who comes from a construction/architecture background, I use the term "structure" in reference to a whole unit were as the example of a nucleotide, to me would be just a brick, or smaller piece of said structure.
So when I say genetic structure I am referring to the whole and complete DNA chain.

however, this does not answer any of my questions
In addition your still trying to get me to admit that I was wrong about changes in the genetic structure, by denying that there are changes in the genetic structure, then showing me evidence of changes in the genetic structure, and then showing me an image of the individual blocks that make up that structure.

I will admit, in this case the blocks don't change, but is it the individual blocks that we are referring to when we speak of this error correcting code?
Is this "sophisticated machinery" created by these individual blocks, or is it derived from combination of said blocks, or is it something completely different?