Evolution is a product of encoded information not anything natural

a reply to: datguy

This is just sad.

Instead of saying, I was wrong and mutations don't occur in the genetic code but in sequences made of the genetic code, you're trying to change science to fit what you were saying.

Now you're talking about point mutations that don't change the genetic code. This is the genetic code:



This is a sequence made up of the genetic code.



A point mutation doesn't change the genetic code. It changes the DNA sequence so Glutamic Acid changes to Valine in the DNA sequence due to a point mutation.

GTA, GTT, GTC and GTG DON'T CHANGE DUE TO A MUTATION! They coded for Valine before the point mutation and they code for Valine after the point mutation.

GAA and GAG DON'T CHANGE DUE TO A MUTATION! They coded for Glutamic Acid before the point mutation and they code for Glutamic Acid after the point mutation.

Again, just say you were wrong. You mixed up the genetic code with the DNA sequence made of the genetic code. You're actually trying to lie about well known, basic science to fit your error.

DNA sequences can change because of mutations but that doesn't change the genetic code. The genetic code has coded for the same 20 amino acids for billions of years which supports what I said in the OP.

a reply to: datguy

sorry to report, buddy, but although neo is definitely arrogant, it is you who is wrong.

i hold a degree in biotechnology and can tell you with no confusion that the term "genetic code" refers specifically to the translation of three-letter nucleotide combinations into specific amino acids (as designated by the chart neo keeps posting).

you are associating "genetic code" with the information encoded. this is incorrect, tho i can certainly understand how you can make this confusion. the coding sequence for insulin is A genetic code, not THE genetic code.

i will not go any further in explanation. it is up to you to reflect upon your confusion and the information you have been presented. i do not think you are a troll. good luck!

a reply to: tgidkp

Arrogance? By pointing out the correct science?

It's arrogant to try and lie about basic well known science to fit your error instead of just saying I was wrong and I mixed up the genetic code with DNA sequences made of the genetic code.

I used to be a pretty hardcore evolution believer as well as a pretty hardcore atheist. The issue with all of this is that I've aged quite a bit since that time, experienced a lot of life, and expanded my reading and viewing lists to be more critical of my initial beliefs (the beliefs I held when I thought I was smarter than everybody else). I also got really deep into the philosophy behind the simulation argument/theory and realized that I couldn't escape how oddly drawn I was to the idea of layered reality and intelligence at the center. In fact, I had been a materialist for so long--I studied and wrote scholarly work from a materialist perspecitve--that it was very hard to finally break free from that sort of echo chamber that I had been part of. It's amazing how easy it is to slip into a type of group thought, especially when it's an academic.

And then I stumbled onto this little gem of a video that talks about the mathematical challenges to evolution. I've always thought of myself as the type that goes against the grain (shouldn't be a surprise to anybody--I'm a long time member of the ultimate "going against the grain" website), and the argument put forth in this video, to me, is the ultimate middle finger to establishment science. People do not dare to challenge Darwin at this point in time.

We are probably in the most complex simulation you could not imagine.

a reply to: yadda333

I liked that video

Here's another video called:

Dr. James Tour, Dr. Hugh Ross: Scientists DISPROVE Origin Of Life THEORIES

The first Dr. is from Rice University and works in the area of Nanotechnology and he destroys the idea of life coming from non-life. I think people believe such nonsense because it allows them to remain godless. It's absurd to think a powerful encoding/decoding system that's encoded with all of these rules, regulations and instructions came from a puddle of mud.

originally posted by: neoholographic
You said:

Why not leave it as creationist cults believes in magic and the rest of the world believes in nature? Why continually create these threads? What satisfaction or goals do you achieve?

This is basically saying I can't refute what you said so please stop posting threads I can't refute on ATS a website that has message boards where people post on different topics! Imagine posting not about the topic of the thread but to complain that you're posting on a message board!

I'm not "basically saying" what you assume or imply. I'm saying the topic of creation vs evolution goes on forever with no conclusions, so what satisfaction or useful employment of one's time is there for it to be continually brought up over and over again with the same outcome?

There is no evidence for creation at all - whichever creation story you happen to believe. If you're trying to prove the existence your god, over all the others that have supposedly existed, then prove it. For example, if all the organisms on Earth were created at one time - indeed, at the same time - then prove it. If these organisms have not changed since their creation, then prove it. If no other organisms have existed before these particular organisms, then prove it.

You won't do any of proofs. Instead, you manipulate and contrive according to your dogmatic agenda.

Back to your OP. It's fallacious. Only the naive and ignorant can't see they are being corrupted by a truly evil cult.

originally posted by: yadda333
I used to be a pretty hardcore evolution believer as well as a pretty hardcore atheist. The issue with all of this is that I've aged quite a bit since that time, experienced a lot of life, and expanded my reading and viewing lists to be more critical of my initial beliefs (the beliefs I held when I thought I was smarter than everybody else).

Have you considered whether that feeling of intellectual superiority, probably especially over those who think that creation/engineering is a more logical cause for the emergence of the machinery and technology life is made up of, was a conditioned feeling because of the propagandistic techniques of those who promote these naturalistic beliefs?

Note what the following article says about the technique of playing on the emotions:

...

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.

...

Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.

...

Next page (linked in my signature):

...

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

...

Source (first page): The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

These propaganda techniques relate to what is called "the tyranny of authority" in this article (in the quotations used as examples at the end, especially the reverse appeal to pride that plays on our fear of seeming stupid, "uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices", but also a more general play on pride intended to make you feel as 'one of the smart ones' if you buy into what they're selling):

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

EVOLUTION “IS ALSO BEING QUESTIONED BY REPUTABLE SCIENTISTS”

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact. However, cool, logical, scientific reasoning, backed by observational and experimental evidence, need not resort to such personal invective.

The position of the evolutionists is more characteristic of religious dogmatism. When the chief priests and Pharisees saw the crowds accepting Jesus, they sent officers to arrest him, with this result: “The Temple police who had been sent to arrest him returned to the chief priests and Pharisees. ‘Why didn’t you bring him in?’ they demanded. ‘He says such wonderful things!’ they mumbled. ‘We’ve never heard anything like it.’ ‘So you also have been led astray?’ the Pharisees mocked. ‘Is there a single one of us Jewish rulers or Pharisees who believes he is the Messiah? These stupid crowds do, yes; but what do they know about it? A curse upon them anyway!”’​—John 7:32, 45-49, The Living Bible.

They were wrong, for evidence proves that many of the rulers were being affected by Jesus’ teaching. Even individual priests became his followers. (John 12:42; Acts 6:7; 15:5) Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Writing in Science, R. E. Gibson said that Galileo possessed “a passionate antagonism to any kind of dogma based on human authority.” It was his intellectual integrity that got him into trouble with the Inquisition. But such integrity, Gibson asserts, “is not fashionable now; the present tendency is for the scientific community, now grown powerful, to behave much as the church did in Galileo’s time.” Is modern science handling power and prestige any better than the Catholic Church did? Einstein once remarked that we are not as far removed from Galileo’s time as we would like to think.​—Science, September 18, 1964, pp. 1271-1276.

Robert Jastrow refers to “the religious faith of the scientist” and his irritation when the evidence doesn’t match his beliefs. J. N. W. Sullivan calls belief in spontaneous generation “an article of faith,” and T. H. Huxley said it was “an act of philosophical faith.” Sullivan said that to believe that evolution made all life on earth was “an extraordinary act of faith.” Dr. J. R. Durant points out that “many scientists succumb to the temptation to be dogmatic, seizing upon new ideas with almost missionary zeal . . . In the case of the theory of evolution, the missionary spirit seems to have prevailed.” Physicist H. S. Lipson says that after Darwin “evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”

Proving the above, U.S. News & World Report (March 2, 1981) told of scandals in science labs. A researcher at Yale said: “It’s the Watergate of science.” The article concluded: “‘It’s shocking,’ acknowledges Dr. Arnold Relman, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. ‘It strikes yet another idol. Everyone turns out to have clay feet​—even some research scientists.”’ Simpson, in The Meaning of Evolution, said evolutionists “may use the same data to ‘prove’ diametrically opposed theories” and each one “puts his particular theory into the data.” (Pp. 137-9) Sullivan said that scientists do not “invariably tell the truth, or try to, even about their science. They have been known to lie, but they did not lie in order to serve science but, usually, religious or anti-religious prejudices.”​—Limitations of Science, pp. 173-5.

The original quest for truth is often forgotten as each one gleans for ideas to bolster his own emotional conviction, whether it be scientific dogma or religious creed. Evolution is not the caliber of the science that sends men to the moon or cracks the genetic code. It is more like religion​—priestlike authorities that speak ex cathedra, sectarian squabbles, unexplainable mysteries, faith in missing links and missing mutations, a laity that blindly follows, wresting evidence to fit their creed, and denouncing nonbelievers as stupid. And their god? The same one the ancients sacrificed to, preparing “a table for the god of Good Luck.”​—Isa. 65:11. [whereislogic: note that the points made in this paragraph are based on the evidence discussed in more detail on the previous page in this article series: Is It a Fact?]

In Hans Christian Andersen’s famous tale of the emperor’s new clothes, it took a small child to tell the emperor that he was naked. Evolution now parades as fully clothed fact. We need childlike honesty to tell it that it’s naked. And we need courageous scientists like Professor Lipson, who said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.”

What evidence is there for belief in creation? See the following article.

THE “TYRANNY OF AUTHORITY” USED BY EVOLUTIONISTS

“When he [Darwin] finished, the fact of evolution could be denied only by an abandonment of reason.”​—Life Nature Library, “Evolution,” p. 10.

“It is not a matter of personal taste whether or not we believe in evolution. The evidence for evolution is compelling.”​—“Evolution, Genetics, and Man,” p. 319, Dobzhansky.

“Its essential truth is now universally accepted by scientists competent to judge.”​—“Nature and Man’s Fate,” p. v, Hardin.

“The establishment of life’s family tree by the evolutionary process is now universally recognized by all responsible scientists.”​—“A Guide to Earth History,” p. 82, Carrington.

“No informed mind today denies that man is descended by slow process from the world of the fish and the frog.”​—“Life” magazine, August 26, 1966, Ardrey.

“It has become almost self-evident and requires no further proof to anyone reasonably free of old illusions and prejudices.”​—“The Meaning of Evolution,” p. 338, Simpson.

“There is no rival hypothesis except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudiced.”​—“Outlines of General Zoology,” p. 407, Newman.

Unable to refute Jesus, the Pharisees as a group resorted to tyranny of authority. Today evolutionists adopt the same tactics: ‘Stupid crowds, what do they know? All reputable scientists accept evolution!’ Not so. As Discover magazine said: “Now that hallowed theory is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists.”​—October 1980.

Did you notice TerraLiga giving that impression (the last sentence of the bolded part, demonstrating having been affected by the first part) when he said:

Scientific researchers - who dedicate their lives and careers to finding facts and furthering our understanding of the world - believe in the natural processes of evolution and species development.

As if all "scientists competent to judge" (borrowing a phrase from Hardin, from the example quotations at the end of the article), all "reputable scientists", all "scientific researchers" accept or believe evolution. Any scientist who doesn't is just some fringe guy not 'dedicated to finding facts and furthering our understanding of the world' (from his perspective possibly). Or 'incompetent to judge' if you will (another popular option is "unqualified", this is the one used a lot by Dave Farina's fans in the comment sections of the James Tour vs Dave Farina debate about origin of life research on youtube, arguing that James Tour is unqualified to critique OOL research).

Note that this inverse implication trick is used a lot in the quotations at the end of the article. Taking Hardin's quotation as an example, the inverse implication being that any scientists who doesn't accept "its essential truth" (referring to evolution), is incompetent to judge. In the next quotation (Carrington), they are irresponsible. If you do that with all the quotations, you get the list at the start of the article:

‘UNBELIEVERS are uninformed, unreasonable, irresponsible, incompetent, ignorant, dogmatic, enslaved by old illusions and prejudices.’ In these ways leading evolutionists describe those who do not accept evolution as a fact.

Just keep in mind regarding this mantra that "evolution is a fact", the following footnote pointed out by the article I used on the first page:

[*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”​—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.]

Small changes within a species are a fact, but it's dishonest to count that as evolution (by calling it “microevolution”) or evidence of evolution. Because of the details regarding what mutations can actually accomplish in terms of turning fish into amphibians, and amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, etc. But I'm not getting into that now. I only wanted to leave a reminder as to what this source is referring to when it's talking about "evolution" and responding to mantras such as "evolution is a fact". Because I skipped the page:

Is It a Fact? (Awake!—1981)

Where it becomes clear what it is that they are responding to.

I appreciate the OP, the topic of DNA stopping large scale macro-evolution makes scientific sense.

Basically DNA is the gatekeeper of negative mutations, it's why a parent won't pass on their deformities to their offspring.

There is a ton of very valuable and informative science posted in this thread by Neo, totally ignoring it, is cognitive dissonance. Disagreeing with this science as presented, means you have a stronger faith in "other" theoretical sciences to support your world view and perspective reality, and that's ok.
But don't fool yourself into thinking your intelligence is so much higher than those that believe in the science presented by Neo in this thread, it's the epitome of total arrogance to call people who believe in this proven science, as members of a cult. Some might not even be a part of any religion, they just see the science, and logically question a theory developed in 1859.

I don't know how to respond to such entrenched and wilful ignorance.

I'm going to ignore the anthropomorphism of the processes of nature that Neo has described regarding the 'code'. It is infantile and not worth anyone's time.

The chart Neo has posted is indeed a complete and contemporary genetic code, which as presented a few hundred million years old. The production of amino acids in nature is, however, a few billion years old. The complete chart as Neo has presented did not arise overnight in its complete form as he would have you believe. There is abundant research and proof that amino acids were produced (by natural processes) and evolved over billions of years. But this fact is in direct contradiction to their dogma that life arose in one moment, its entirety - and recently.

If a person who is presented with apparently logical information and accepts it without question or query, then that is wilful ignorance.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Great points and you can tell how weak somene's argument when they say silly things like:

I don't know how to respond to such entrenched and wilful ignorance.

Notice Terra never refutes what's being said. He/she thinks if you say enough pejoratives, people will be fooled into thinking you know what you're talking about.

You said

Basically DNA is the gatekeeper of negative mutations, it's why a parent won't pass on their deformities to their offspring.

I like the way you put this. This shows why evolution couldn't have occurred naturally.

The reason DNA isn't overrun with errors is because of error detection and correction that protects the code as it's being copied over and over again as it goes from the gene to the polypeptide chain.

This is pure information. The DNA is an encoding/decoding system that's protected by error detection and correction. DNA could never be passed on if it's overrun with errors.

This goes against nature. Nature destroys encoded information as it's being copied. This is because the storage medium is subject to entropy and the environment. It can be damaged in a way that scrambles the information encoded on it's sequence.

So evolution couldn't occur naturally, it's designed to go against nature. Everything else in nature just responds to it's environment. You leave ice on the table, it melts. The right conditions and you have a thunderstorm. You don't need encoded information and error correction to tell ice how to melt. This is intelligent design and this is how we build modern civilization.

Ask yourself, why would nature depend on encoded information and then build the machinery to decode that information to tell amino acids how they should be arranged on a polypeptide chain?

If this is natural, why don't polypeptides respond to their environment when they fall into a puddle of mud, lightning strikes and these 20 amino acids out of 100's of amino acids for some unknown reason attach themselves to the polypetide chain.

Instead you have encoded information being read from a gene then going to the polypetide chain and the DNA sequence made of the genetic code tells tranfer RNA's how to arrange amino acids on a polypetide chain that folds into proteins.

Here's a video that illustrates this process. You have instructions encoded on sequences made up of the genetic code. This is information being encoded then decoded and protected as it's being copied. This isn't anything natural.



Here's another video showing error detection and correction. The video says, that these error detection and correction methods can reduce mismatch errors to 1 in 1 billion. Also, these error correcting proteins are created by DNA sequences made up of the genetic code, so which came first?

How can these error correcting proteins be made when the DNA sequence encoded with information from the genetic code to make these proteins, needs error correction as the code is copied?

Let me repeat:

How can these error correcting proteins be made when the DNA sequence encoded with information from the genetic code to make these proteins, needs error correction as the code is copied?

a reply to: datguy

Neo is a blockhead. Changes definitions to suit his agenda.
Mutations change the information output of dna. That means that the complete code for some functionality has changed. You can call it the code or just information. For instance cancer could not proliferate without certain permanent mutations to the normal cell. These mutations are now permanent and will not change without additional modifications to the code.
The code for amino acids is fixed unless there is a mutation to one of the bases.
Any function genetically regulated can be modified by mutation. The result of mutation is a change to the code, or the information output.
Do not pay attention to neo and the idiot clans on this forum. They are the Neanderthals of science
Sorry for errors I am traveling
Read below. Note terminology.



There is increasing evidence that in eukaryotic cells, DNA undergoes continuous damage, repair and resynthesis. A homeostatic equilibrium exists in which extensive DNA damage is counterbalanced by multiple pathways for DNA repair. In normal cells, most DNA damage is repaired without error. However, in tumor cells this equilibrium may be skewed, resulting in the accumulation of multiple mutations. Among genes mutated are those that function in guaranteeing the stability of the genome. Loss of this stability results in a mutator phenotype. Evidence for a mutator phenotype in human cancers includes the frequent occurrence of gene amplification, microsatellite instability, chromosomal aberrations and aneuploidy. Current experiments have centered on two mechanisms for the generation of genomic instability, one focused on mutations in mismatch repair genes resulting in microsatellite instability, and one focused on mutations in genes that are required for chromosomal segregation resulting in chromosomal aberrations. This dichotomy may reflect only the ease by which these manifestations can be identified. Underlying both pathways may be a more general phenomenon involving the selection for mutator genes during tumor progression. During carcinogenesis there is selection for cells harboring mutations that can overcome adverse conditions that limit tumor growth. These mutations are produced by direct DNA damage as well as secondarily as a result of mutations in genes that cause a mutator phenotype. Thus, as tumor progression selects for cells with specific mutations, it also selects for cancer cells harboring mutations in genes that normally function in maintaining genetic instability.

a reply to: Phantom423

Phantom is known to come on threads late and he spouts nonsense everytime. He said:

The code for amino acids is fixed unless there is a mutation to one of the bases.
Any function genetically regulated can be modified by mutation. The result of mutation is a change to the code, or the information output.

This is absolutely false and here's a question he will not answer that shows this.

Is the change in the code in the DNA sequence or the genetic code? What's the difference between a DNA sequence and the genetic code that codes for 20 amino acids?

Let me ask again because you're known for dodging questions.

Is the change in the code in the DNA sequence or the genetic code? What's the difference between a DNA sequence and the genetic code that codes for 20 amino acids?

When you admit that change doesn't occur to the genetic code then you're supporting the OP!

When I read things like "evolution is not natural.." I cannot help to think that everything is natural, and evolution itself would have to be as natural as anything else in nature and nothing could exist that would be ancillary to it.

I like to bring out my pet fly picture here to make the point. The fly is a big ugly monster that feeds on ants but can never get close enough to its prey before they scatter in fear. Its genome understands it is a big scary monster to the ants so it designed perfect 3D copies of ants in its wings so it can get close to the ants and those ant copies will be the last thing that a real ant will see before it gets gobbled up.

Intelligence evolves via evolution and is as natural as everything else. Parity and checksums which are some of the error correcting that people use were designed out of necessity to build our computers, just as the error checking required of DNA and RNA were designed out of necessity to help life itself evolve.

a reply to: neoholographic

Well if I am supporting you and I am spouting nonsense, I guess that says everything we need to know about your post. Get some serious help particularly in critical thinking and reading comprehension.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

Well if I am supporting you and I am spouting nonsense, I guess that says everything we need to know about your post. Get some serious help particularly in critical thinking and reading comprehension.

I told ya!

I said Phantom will dodge the question so I asked it twice and he still dodged the question LOL! Here's the question:

Is the change in the code in the DNA sequence or the genetic code? What's the difference between a DNA sequence and the genetic code that codes for 20 amino acids?

Let me ask it again and let's see how many posts it takes for Phantom to actually anwer the questions.

Is the change in the code in the DNA sequence or the genetic code? What's the difference between a DNA sequence and the genetic code that codes for 20 amino acids?

a reply to: tgidkp

There is no need for reflection, I already pointed out that out a few pages back and was called a troll for it. I later linked to that same post for another member who suggested the same thing you did.
But Neo wouldn't have it and apparently no reads threads anymore, he continued to call me a troll so, when in rome...

With that said, nothing I have posted or said is incorrect, unless of course ALL the links I used for supporting evidence is incorrect.

I am not wrong, a brick is not a bridge

a reply to: datguy

Oh no, he's back and still can't admit he's wrong!

What's wrong with people? Everybody reading this thread knows you're wrong and I believe you know you're wrong but you don't want to admit you're wrong on a message board. Why??? It makes no sense! You can talk about bricks and bridges until you're blue in the face and that will not change basic science about genetics.

You said:

then what are mutations in the genetic code?

When I told you that mutations didn't occur in the genetic code but sequences made of the genetic code, you should of said okay I was wrong and we could have moved on with a better discussion. But you still think people are so gullible that if you repeat your lie over and over again that they will believe you.

This is the genetic code:



This hasn't changed for billions of years and codes for the same amino acids.

This next picture is DNA sequences made of the genetic code and they can change as they're copied.



The fact that you continue to lie as though if you repeat the lie you can change basic understanding of genetics is just pathetic.

a reply to: neoholographic

Types of mutations

Changes to a gene's DNA sequence, called mutations, can change the amino acid sequence of the protein it codes for—but they don't always. A point mutation is a change to single DNA letter. They fall into three categories: Missense mutations cause a single amino acid change

again not my words, just quoting the science you deny just like my previous posts

A brick Is not a bridge