Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: Venkuish1

That's only true in your head and nowhere else.

No that's literally a video of people that are outside of my head. You thinking that EVERY scientist believes in evolution is exposing your dogmatic view of this whole thing.

So the entire scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy against intelligent design according to you and the scientists are willingly living in the dark ages.

We have been teaching it to kids for multiple generations now. It is indoctrinated in people. How does any false belief reach popularity? Look at how you all are treating someone who is challenging evolutionary theory... they do the same in the professional setting as well. People get fired for challenging evolution.

Cooperton: Pakicetus was even admitted to fully be a land animal in the paper published in nature. Hardly a transitional fossil into a whale.

What nonsense for once more.
You are in the very dangerous path of total denialism of reality.

It's a direct quote from the paper, even the researchers themselves concluded that this creature was not amphibious:

"pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."
Nature, 2001

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

That's only true in your head and nowhere else.

No that's literally a video of people that are outside of my head. You thinking that EVERY scientist believes in evolution is exposing your dogmatic view of this whole thing.

So the entire scientific community is engaged in a massive conspiracy against intelligent design according to you and the scientists are willingly living in the dark ages.

We have been teaching it to kids for multiple generations now. It is indoctrinated in people. How does any false belief reach popularity? Look at how you all are treating someone who is challenging evolutionary theory... they do the same in the professional setting as well. People get fired for challenging evolution.

Cooperton: Pakicetus was even admitted to fully be a land animal in the paper published in nature. Hardly a transitional fossil into a whale.

What nonsense for once more.
You are in the very dangerous path of total denialism of reality.

It's a direct quote from the paper, even the researchers themselves concluded that this creature was not amphibious:

"pakicetids were terrestrial mammals, no more amphibious than a tapir."
Nature, 2001

You are in oath of denial of reality and science but that's what the ideology of creationism does to people.

Sadly for you and for the rest of creationists science disagree with you at all levels. Creationism is debunked and never had any legs to stand on.

You need to start asking yourself why E.Coli doesn't 'evolve' to become Chlamydia Trachomatis. You haven't answered the question even though you posed something similar in the threads.

I wonder what kind of degrees you have. You have claimed you a lot of degrees in this area. But which area? Where did you study and what did you study? You have dodged this question consistently.

a reply to: cooperton

Your 'understanding' of evolution is as good as your 'understanding' of astrophysics.

The entire scientific community according to you seems to have conspired for so long to hide the the truth of creationism. How convincing! Any evidence though?

baleinesendirect.org...

The first whales appeared 50 million years ago, well after the extinction of the dinosaurs, but well before the appearance of the first humans. Their ancestor is most likely an ancient artiodactyl, i.e. a four-legged, even-toed hoofed (ungulate) land mammal, adapted for running. Cetaceans thus have a common ancestor with modern-day artiodactyls such as the cow, the pig, the camel, the giraffe and the hippopotamus

Land creatures the ancestors of whales? How can this be possible creationists ask themselves. All fossils were put by God here on Earth to test us and test out faith. That's an outstanding explanation.

Similar to monkeys that can't evolve to become humans and so evolution can't be true.

a reply to: cooperton

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Dogs evolving from Wolves

The grey wolf (Canis lupus) was the first species to give rise to a domestic population, and they remained widespread throughout the last Ice Age when many other large mammal species went extinct. Little is known, however, about the history and possible extinction of past wolf populations or when and where the wolf progenitors of the present-day dog lineage (Canis familiaris) lived1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Here we analysed 72 ancient wolf genomes spanning the last 100,000 years from Europe, Siberia and North America. We found that wolf populations were highly connected throughout the Late Pleistocene, with levels of differentiation an order of magnitude lower than they are today. This population connectivity allowed us to detect natural selection across the time series, including rapid fixation of mutations in the gene IFT88 40,000–30,000 years ago. We show that dogs are overall more closely related to ancient wolves from eastern Eurasia than to those from western Eurasia, suggesting a domestication process in the east. However, we also found that dogs in the Near East and Africa derive up to half of their ancestry from a distinct population related to modern southwest Eurasian wolves, reflecting either an independent domestication process or admixture from local wolves. None of the analysed ancient wolf genomes is a direct match for either of these dog ancestries, meaning that the exact progenitor populations remain to be located.

What does creationism say about the evolution of wolves?

Let me guess!

If wolves evolved at some stage and some of them became domesticated dogs then why don't wolves evolved today to become dogs. I think I get you!

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Dogs evolving from Wolves

The grey wolf (Canis lupus) was the first species to give rise to a domestic population, and they remained widespread throughout the last Ice Age when many other large mammal species went extinct. Little is known, however, about the history and possible extinction of past wolf populations or when and where the wolf progenitors of the present-day dog lineage (Canis familiaris) lived1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Here we analysed 72 ancient wolf genomes spanning the last 100,000 years from Europe, Siberia and North America. We found that wolf populations were highly connected throughout the Late Pleistocene, with levels of differentiation an order of magnitude lower than they are today. This population connectivity allowed us to detect natural selection across the time series, including rapid fixation of mutations in the gene IFT88 40,000–30,000 years ago. We show that dogs are overall more closely related to ancient wolves from eastern Eurasia than to those from western Eurasia, suggesting a domestication process in the east. However, we also found that dogs in the Near East and Africa derive up to half of their ancestry from a distinct population related to modern southwest Eurasian wolves, reflecting either an independent domestication process or admixture from local wolves. None of the analysed ancient wolf genomes is a direct match for either of these dog ancestries, meaning that the exact progenitor populations remain to be located.

What does creationism say about the evolution of wolves?

Let me guess!

If wolves evolved at some stage and some of them became domesticated dogs then why don't wolves evolved today to become dogs. I think I get you!

Smithsonian 😂🤣

Now do Octopi.

👍

a reply to: Dalamax

Cephalopods are mostly soft body so Fossil evidence of their existence is scarce, but do include octopus, squid, cuttlefish and nautilus in that family. (I have a large marine tank and always wanted an octopuss but thought it was cruel as they are very intelligent)

phys.org...#:~:text=A%20new%20paper%20in%20Genome%20Biology%20and%20Evolution,produced%20actual%20shells %20in%20its%20ancestors%20and%20relatives.

New research shows how octopuses may have evolved

new paper in Genome Biology and Evolution indicates that a type of octopus appears to have evolved independently to develop something resembling a shell, despite having lost the genetic code that produced actual shells in its ancestors and relatives.

Argonauta argo is a species of octopus that lives in tropical and subtropical open seas. Female argonauts have a protective, spiral, shell-like egg case, which protects the eggs inside. Researchers have long wondered about the origin of this egg case. It looks very much like the shell of the commonly known pearly nautilus (the very distant relative of the argonaut), which has a true hard shell and lives on the ocean floor, but that may just be a coincidence.

originally posted by: Dalamax

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: cooperton

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Dogs evolving from Wolves

The grey wolf (Canis lupus) was the first species to give rise to a domestic population, and they remained widespread throughout the last Ice Age when many other large mammal species went extinct. Little is known, however, about the history and possible extinction of past wolf populations or when and where the wolf progenitors of the present-day dog lineage (Canis familiaris) lived1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8. Here we analysed 72 ancient wolf genomes spanning the last 100,000 years from Europe, Siberia and North America. We found that wolf populations were highly connected throughout the Late Pleistocene, with levels of differentiation an order of magnitude lower than they are today. This population connectivity allowed us to detect natural selection across the time series, including rapid fixation of mutations in the gene IFT88 40,000–30,000 years ago. We show that dogs are overall more closely related to ancient wolves from eastern Eurasia than to those from western Eurasia, suggesting a domestication process in the east. However, we also found that dogs in the Near East and Africa derive up to half of their ancestry from a distinct population related to modern southwest Eurasian wolves, reflecting either an independent domestication process or admixture from local wolves. None of the analysed ancient wolf genomes is a direct match for either of these dog ancestries, meaning that the exact progenitor populations remain to be located.

What does creationism say about the evolution of wolves?

Let me guess!

If wolves evolved at some stage and some of them became domesticated dogs then why don't wolves evolved today to become dogs. I think I get you!

Smithsonian 😂🤣

Now do Octopi.

👍

The article is from the online magazine however the story comes from a peer reviewed scientific paper that you probably haven't read and I assume you don't read any science papers. But you are lucky as I have linked the abstract and the paper can be found here:

www.nature.com...

Another failed attempt to dismiss evolution based on your complete lack of understanding and lack of reading.

Did you really think the story came from the mind of a random journalist online? Not everyone is a creationist in this world so to push nonsense online and making up stuff that they try to sell to the public.

a reply to: Dalamax

Okay.

Octopi are cephalopods.

The first cephalopods arose as nautiloids in the Cambrian.

Here is the early cephalopod:



In the current tree of life

Nautilus is to Octopus as squirrel is to Human, still both cephalopods and mammals respectively, but the former of each is FAR closer to the primative varieties in the taxonomic classes.

It's a fallacy that creationists use. "Why are there still animals in all stages of supposed evolution?"

Like because a modern nautilus (in the cephalopod class) is still closer to a Cambrian nautilus it means there weren't other niches for some variations of cephalopod to exploit.

But alas, some Nautiloids branched off. Some cephalopods straightened out their shells, and by the Ordovician (440 MYA), some nautiloids had taken up this configuration:



Which led to losing the shell by 160 million years ago, eventually becoming modern squid and octopi.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: Dalamax

Okay.

Octopi are cephalopods.

The first cephalopods arose as nautiloids in the Cambrian.

Here is the early cephalopod:

In the current tree of life

Nautilus is to Octopus as squirrel is to Human, still both cephalopods and mammals respectively, but the former of each is FAR closer to the primative varieties in the taxonomic classes.

It's a fallacy that creationists use. "Why are there still animals in all stages of supposed evolution?"

Like because a modern nautilus (in the cephalopod class) is still closer to a Cambrian nautilus it means there weren't other niches for some variations of cephalopod to exploit.

But alas, some Nautiloids branched off. Some cephalopods straightened out their shells, and by the Ordovician (440 MYA), some nautiloids had taken up this configuration:

Which led to losing the shell by 160 million years ago, eventually becoming modern squid and octopi.

But you will be asked again despite refuting their arguments again and again (seems to be the system they are following)

If humans descended from monkeys then why monkeys don't evolve to become humans?

But I like this even more! If E.Coli is a bacterium and evolution is true then why E.Coli doesn't evolve to become Chlamydia Trachomatis? Why it still remains as an E.Coli bacterium?

a reply to: cooperton

Finally getting back to this.

The idea that amino acid polymerization in water is thermodynamically unstable is derived from the fact that the molecule exists as a zwitterion under ambient conditions. A zwitterion is a molecule that contains an equal number of positively and negatively charged functional groups. With amino acids in solution a chemical equilibrium will be established between the "parent" molecule and the zwitterion. It's chemical equilibrium that makes it thermodynamically unfavorable because nothing can happen without a catalyst. So at that point, we can consider E = 0, or energy input/output is zero. It's a condition of stasis. No reaction will take place. However, as stated in the paper:

The reaction kinetics can be influenced by factors such as the activation energy required for the reaction to occur and any competing side reactions. Additionally, in a biological context, enzymes often catalyze the formation of peptide bonds, lowering the activation energy and accelerating the reaction rate, making it more biologically relevant.

The condensation polymerization reaction of amino acids to form peptides is thermodynamically favorable under appropriate conditions. So the stability of the reaction depends on various factors such as pH, temperature, concentration of reactants, and presence of catalysts. Remember, we don't know the exact conditions in the prebiotic world.

The paper goes on to say:

We hypothesize that atmospheric aerosols may have played a major role in the prebiotic formation of peptide bonds by providing the thermodynamic driving force to facilitate increasingly stable linear oligopeptides. In addition, we hypothesize that small aerosols orient amino acids on their surfaces, thus providing the correct molecular orientations to funnel the reaction pathways of peptides through transition states that lead eventually to polypeptide products.

The aerosol idea makes sense to me. Not only are gases in the atmosphere, but also dissolved in water. So the opportunity for amino acids to interface with gases is probably very high.

Remember that the purpose of the experiment was to test various conditions which may have been present in the prebiotic world. We don't know, and probably can never know, exactly what those conditions were. The same applies to DNA, RNA and more complex molecules.

a reply to: Terpene

Funny you'd bring up dark matter, everything is dark until we understand it's true mechanism interacting with our physical world

I was in the NASA Facebook group yesterday and this subject came up.

When I tried to post the following it was immediately declined by their group bot:

"Dark Matter + Dark Energy = we have no clue at all about this."

No matter how I phrased it, it was "declined" and not posted.

I even tried posting a message to the groups admins asking if their bot had bumped it's head or something. And guess what the response was?

"Declined".

You can't make this stuff up.



NASA is the biggest Luddite out there.

What are they afraid of?

a reply to: Terpene

Oh and the speed of light is only a theoretical limit that needs to be applied for an explanation that builds on the observable only.
It's the limit of our processing speed, but is there really nothing faster?

Kirk, Spock and the Star Trek crew would disagree.

"Take us to Warp 7 Scotty"

True story.

a reply to: Venkuish1

It's religion that has created a God according to the anthropomorphic principle and the beliefs of old men in the middle east. Don't forget God is a male character and quite unpleasant if you don't believe in him.

The Bible got one thing right but the words were reversed.

"God created Man in his own image"

It should read "Man created God in his own image"

N'est pas?

a reply to: Kurokage

A magical invisble being created everything or intelligent beings created life, with both leaving the question 'who created them then?' The simplest hypothesis is life is basically just part of the evolution of the universe, where the conditions are just right, life will evolve.

Have you seen the movie "Prometheus"?

It's the latest installment in the "Aliens" movie franchise.

It has a very interesting take on where DNA and all life on Earth came from.

And I like to watch Charlize Theron in a space suit too...

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1



To think the scientific establishment is free of dogma, is either nativity, or ignorance...

Nativity?

Typo or Freudian slip?

a reply to: Degradation33

So to posit "interdimensional", you are absolutely positing a plane of worlds with different universal histories.

So we are in string theory territory.

And string theory has an interesting answer for universal laws. Infinity of infinity is implied up around 8, 9, and 10.

So this insignificant universe has life, and everything the way it does, because it has to. Every variation in every conceivable way exists and HAS TO. Hence, EVERY specifically 'designed' universe is merely a requirement of the theory.

If you really think about it, that circumvents intelligence being necessary. Because IT HAS to happen. That, or intelligence is an interchangeable term for infinity. God is LITERALLY EVERYTHING in every conceivable way.

Great post!

And don't you just love it when the physical starts to intersect and/or collide with the metaphysical?

The truth is in there somewhere...

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

I can't go full-on atheist anymore. And that isn't really a "saved" situation.

Anywhere you need infinity (or preexisting constants) I think it's kinda equivocal.

Even with vacuum models there always a requirement of constants existing in this primordial state, most notably the speed of light. Things like the speed of light existing before there was an electromagnetic force bugs the crap out of me.

But you need that existing for most of those random fluctuations to happen.

So you ask, okay, why are there laws in place before there is a universe?

I can't find a physics theory where there isn't some priori something that must have been in place before inflation.

a reply to: SchrodingersRat

Lol, good catch...

Probably typo, but when you think about it i might have slipped freudian style and tried to infer something about the posters allegiance. But that's an argument i mostly try to stay away from...

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat
a reply to: Terpene

Funny you'd bring up dark matter, everything is dark until we understand it's true mechanism interacting with our physical world

I was in the NASA Facebook group yesterday and this subject came up.

When I tried to post the following it was immediately declined by their group bot:

"Dark Matter + Dark Energy = we have no clue at all about this."

No matter how I phrased it, it was "declined" and not posted.

I even tried posting a message to the groups admins asking if their bot had bumped it's head or something. And guess what the response was?

"Declined".

You can't make this stuff up.

NASA is the biggest Luddite out there.

What are they afraid of?

That's not correct.

Dark and dark energy are known by their indirect effects. For example dark is known due to its gravitational effects in ordinary matter. Dark is hypothesised to be responsible for the accelerated expansion of the universe. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of both but not conclusive at this point.

a reply to: neoholographicpart2

I don't believe any "encoded information" is necessary, although my concept of a "designer" likely differs from the majority of theologians tending more towards a deistic approach like Einstein for example.

And not only would an evolving universe be more a product of "design" rather than random chaos, and just as important, it would also require a 'preservation' aspect as well. It seems that nearly five billion years would be an awfully long time to exist in the metaphorical "cosmic shooting gallery" while being 'lucky' enough to avoid total annihilation at some point early on.

So in the past I've always been drawn to the precision and longevity of the "Goldilocks Zone" as one element among others that appears to lean more towards some primordial deistic influence.

Things do get a bit messy though when you attempt to venture just prior the universe, so "chaos" may actually have its place in the grand scheme of things but it seems that an emerging, developing, and evolving universe over the course of many eons would require just a little bit more than that.