75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[Muslim-UK]

I never said straightforward, i said not complicated. Please do not misrepresent me to bolster your specious claims. I also said you were confusing quantity and complexity. That snippet shows how simple dna is and how much there is of billions of simple molecules. Your understanding is not required.

It is mindbogglingly complicated. The 100 books mapping the human genome weren't written by anyone person, they would have used a range of powerful computers to crunch the data and used teams of Scientists for the undertaking...

"The Human Genome Project (HGP) was an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and a functional standpoint.[1] It remains the world's largest collaborative biological project.[2] After the idea was picked up in 1984 by the US government when the planning started, the project formally launched in 1990 and was declared complete in 2000. Funding came from the US government through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as numerous other groups from around the world." Human Genome Project - Wikipedia

Wtf has all the worlds data on a teaspoon to do with your claim? I have demonstrated that the human genome is published in around 100 books. You have not demonstrated your claim that "even a teaspoon contains more information than all the books in the Wold combined"

Yes potentially, a teaspoon of DNA could easily hold the same amunt of data as all the books in the World:

"One gram of DNA can potentially hold up to 455 exabytes of data, according to the New Scientist. For reference: There are one billion gigabytes in an exabyte, and 1,000 exabytes in a zettabyte. The cloud computing company EMC estimated that there were 1.8 zettabytes of data in the world in 2011, which means we would need only about 4 grams (about a teaspoon) of DNA to hold everything from Plato through the complete works of Shakespeare to Beyonce’s latest album (not to mention every brunch photo ever posted on Instagram)."

You have also not addressed your claim that dna shows "precise design"

I highlighted it in bold.

Scientists discover precise DNA sequence code critical for turning genes on | KurzweilAI

Scientists discover precise DNA sequence code critical for turning genes on
Geneticists solve a decades-long puzzle about how genes are turned on to make cellular proteins
January 27, 2017

DNA sequence signal for the activation of human genes. Each tiny human cell contains about six feet of DNA, a double-helical molecular chain containing four types of several billion chemical nucleotides — adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — arranged in a specific sequence, or code, that when transcribed guide the cell into producing specific proteins. (credit: University of California — San Diego)

Molecular biologists at the University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego) have discovered a short sequence of DNA that is essential for turning on (expressing proteins) more than half of all human genes — an achievement that should provide scientists with a better understanding of how human genes are regulated.

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram - ExtremeTech

A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.

The work, carried out by George Church and Sri Kosuri, basically treats DNA as just another digital storage device. Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized, with each of the bases (TGAC) representing a binary value (T and G = 1, A and C = 0).

To read the data stored in DNA, you simply sequence it — just as if you were sequencing the human genome — and convert each of the TGAC bases back into binary. To aid with sequencing, each strand of DNA has a 19-bit address block at the start (the red bits in the image below) — so a whole vat of DNA can be sequenced out of order, and then sorted into usable data using the addresses.




Precision engineering from The Almighty at its best.

 

[Polymath257]

I would say this defines it pretty well:

the definition of supernatural

adjective
1.
of, relating to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

In what sense is there an 'above' the natural? To be 'above' is a direction in space and is therefore part of the natural world. This is clearly a hold-over from a time when heaven was 'above' the stars, which were dots on a solid dome over (or later, around) the Earth.

As for not being explainable by natural law of phenomena, that is a changing goalpost as we learn how to explain more and more things. What evidence do you have of something that will *always* be impossible to explain via natural laws?

2.
of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.

Which deity? Care to define carefully and show the existence of this deity? Or any deities for that matter? Or even give a coherent definition of what it means to be a deity? Can a deity be natural?

3.
of a superlative degree; preternatural:
a missile of supernatural speed.

Which I think we can all agree isn't the meaning aluded to in most claims of being supernatural. This is simply natural, but more than is common.

4.
of, relating to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.

And again, whether any of these actually exist is a point of contention. What evidence do you have? And how does this definition relate to the others? Completely independent?

noun
5.
a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.

See above?

6.
behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7.
direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.

So if a deity is natural, the influence would be supernatural and natural at the same time?

8.
the supernatural.

1. supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
2. supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence:
   a deep fear of the supernatural.

What supernatural plane of existence? I don't know of any. Care to point one out? How do we measure one of these?

Well, since the definitions for the adjectives are ultimately vague and confused, the definitions of the nouns in terms of them are similarly afflicted.

If this is an example of something defined 'pretty well', then someone needs to learn a bit of clarity and precision of language.

 

[Misunderstood]

I never said straightforward, i said not complicated. Please do not misrepresent me to bolster your specious claims. I also said you were confusing quantity and complexity. That snippet shows how simple dna is and how much there is of billions of simple molecules. Your understanding is not required.

I would think quantity would equal complexity in some cases. Take the Rubik cube it has 4 colors and 54 tiles. They seem fairly complicated to solve. Also, computers only have on and off switches, but fairly complex programs are written in them.

 

[Muslim-UK]

In what sense is there an 'above' the natural? To be 'above' is a direction in space and is therefore part of the natural world. This is clearly a hold-over from a time when heaven was 'above' the stars, which were dots on a solid dome over (or later, around) the Earth.

As for not being explainable by natural law of phenomena, that is a changing goalpost as we learn how to explain more and more things. What evidence do you have of something that will *always* be impossible to explain via natural laws?



Which deity? Care to define carefully and show the existence of this deity? Or any deities for that matter? Or even give a coherent definition of what it means to be a deity? Can a deity be natural?



Which I think we can all agree isn't the meaning aluded to in most claims of being supernatural. This is simply natural, but more than is common.


And again, whether any of these actually exist is a point of contention. What evidence do you have? And how does this definition relate to the others? Completely independent?



See above?



So if a deity is natural, the influence would be supernatural and natural at the same time?


What supernatural plane of existence? I don't know of any. Care to point one out? How do we measure one of these?

Well, since the definitions for the adjectives are ultimately vague and confused, the definitions of the nouns in terms of them are similarly afflicted.

If this is an example of something defined 'pretty well', then someone needs to learn a bit of clarity and precision of language.

He already explained, it was a copy and paste from a online Dictionary source. The Supernatural by definition is beyond the natural world, beyond the realm of Science, there are no tools available to examine it. GOD is within the Supernatural, He exists outside Time and Space, meaning humans can never ever hope to Scientifically prove or disprove His existence definitively. Scientists usually don't even talk GOD, as it's within the realm of personal subjective 'faith' and of no consequence to the Scientific community and the tools they use to understand the World around us.

 

[Polymath257]

He already explained, it was a copy and paste from a online Dictionary source. The Supernatural by definition is beyond the natural world, beyond the realm of Science, there are no tools available to examine it. GOD is within the Supernatural, He exists outside Time and Space, meaning humans can never ever hope to Scientifically prove or disprove His existence definitively. Scientists usually don't even talk GOD, as it's within the realm of personal subjective 'faith' and of no consequence to the Scientific community and the tools they use to understand the World around us.

OK, so it is a matter of personal experience. That makes it *opinion* and not *fact*. if there are no tools available to examine it, and none even theoretically possible then in what sense is it even meaningful?

Exactly what does it even mean to be 'beyond that l world'? Seriously, how do you define the 'natural world' in such a way that it is even possible to exist beyond it? Where even the question of existence is meaningful beyond it?

Again, if there is no way to test the ideas, they are *opinions* and not *facts*. They are not 'truth', but instead, a myth: a story to convey psychological self-worth.

 

[Misunderstood]

If this is an example of something defined 'pretty well', then someone needs to learn a bit of clarity and precision of language.

As I said before this is a cut and paste from dictionary.com, I even left a link to it. I did check multiple dictionaries before posting this and they pretty much state the same thing. Maybe you would be a good person to point out their (dictionary.com) deficiencies, so they can make corrections.

However, I feel there are definitions on what ghosts, goblins, and unicorns are also. You may want to make corrections on them also while correcting this one.

Whether, science can prove something exists does not get it a place in a dictionary. They try to define most everything from love to hate, God and atheism, and just about any though we can think of, whether real or not, just so when someone uses a word we will know what they are talking about. Like when I say unicorn, I bet you get a picture in your mind of what one would be if you ever saw one.

 

[Polymath257]

As I said before this is a cut and paste from dictionary.com, I even left a link to it. I did check multiple dictionaries before posting this and they pretty much state the same thing. Maybe you would be a good person to point out their (dictionary.com) deficiencies, so they can make corrections.

However, I feel there are definitions on what ghosts, goblins, and unicorns are also. You may want to make corrections on them also while correcting this one.

Whether, science can prove something exists does not get it a place in a dictionary. They try to define most everything from love to hate, God and atheism, and just about any though we can think of, whether real or not, just so when someone uses a word we will know what they are talking about. Like when I say unicorn, I bet you get a picture in your mind of what one would be if you ever saw one.

Exactly the point of a definition. But how do these definitions do this? How do they hep us to determine if anything actually is supernatural?

 

[Misunderstood]

Exactly the point of a definition. But how do these definitions do this? How do they hep us to determine if anything actually is supernatural?

It wasn't meant to in this instance, creationists were accused of not giving a definition for 'supernatural' in the below quote. This was my first post in this thread and all I did was look up a definition and posted it. I think as a Christian I would agree that is how we feel about Supernatural in a poorly worded definition.

When creationists who follow this line of argumentation (and we don't all follow this line of argumentation, by the by) can define for me what precisely "supernatural" is and how that is meaningfully different from "natural" I might start to understand the argument. I have always found the term "supernatural" to be perplexing and nonsensical. It is very telling that the argumentation presented never actually defines what "supernatural" is.

Maybe the definition does not help. But if someone wanted to look for the 'Supernatural' it is good to have at least a clue where to look and what they are looking for. Who knows if they will find it, but if they do how will they define it when they do. Kind of like the unicorn.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

remaining bacteria after all this time, resisting evolution

the vast periods of stasis are just as telling as the explosive changes- neither follow the slow gradual adaptation model.

If a monthly photocopied office memo remained identical after even just 12 generations, you know it's coming from a master copy, random mutations would degrade it.

It's not impossible that a copying error would actually significantly improve the memo, it's just extremely improbable.

C'mon, Threepwood! Get with it! You've heard of "antibiotic-resistant bacteria". The bacteria are evolving to resist antibiotics.... apparently they're growing little arms and fists, punching the antibiotics....after a few more million mutations, they'll be running away on little legs, morphing into Arthropoda.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Yes. A lot of the items on that list are blatantly false.

 

[LuisDantas]

BUT he uses the phrase "...purposeless random evolution" - whatever that is, it is NOT evolution.

Very much this.

 

[Jumi]

"THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE, SPIRALS AND THE GOLDEN MEAN. TheFibonacci sequence exhibits a certain numerical pattern which originated as the answer to an exercise in the first ever high school algebra text. This pattern turned out to have an interest and importance far beyond what its creator imagined."

Simple things do turn out to be important. It may sound complicated, but isn't.

Sounds quite complicated to me, but if this is classed as simple and evidence of a Designer, then yes, clearly simple as well as complex things can both be pointed to in making a case for a Supreme Designer.

Then if we find a rock to be proof of a designer, why say complex things are proof of design, if simple things are thought to be equally so?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

More like "75 Faeces", am I right?!

...

Am I?

...

Am I right...?

...

...

Guys...?

 

[ChristineM]

It is mindbogglingly complicated. The 100 books mapping the human genome weren't written by anyone person, they would have used a range of powerful computers to crunch the data and used teams of Scientists for the undertaking...

"The Human Genome Project (HGP) was an international scientific research project with the goal of determining the sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA, and of identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome from both a physical and a functional standpoint.[1] It remains the world's largest collaborative biological project.[2] After the idea was picked up in 1984 by the US government when the planning started, the project formally launched in 1990 and was declared complete in 2000. Funding came from the US government through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as well as numerous other groups from around the world." Human Genome Project - Wikipedia

Yes potentially, a teaspoon of DNA could easily hold the same amunt of data as all the books in the World:

"One gram of DNA can potentially hold up to 455 exabytes of data, according to the New Scientist. For reference: There are one billion gigabytes in an exabyte, and 1,000 exabytes in a zettabyte. The cloud computing company EMC estimated that there were 1.8 zettabytes of data in the world in 2011, which means we would need only about 4 grams (about a teaspoon) of DNA to hold everything from Plato through the complete works of Shakespeare to Beyonce’s latest album (not to mention every brunch photo ever posted on Instagram)."

I highlighted it in bold.

Scientists discover precise DNA sequence code critical for turning genes on | KurzweilAI

Scientists discover precise DNA sequence code critical for turning genes on
Geneticists solve a decades-long puzzle about how genes are turned on to make cellular proteins
January 27, 2017

DNA sequence signal for the activation of human genes. Each tiny human cell contains about six feet of DNA, a double-helical molecular chain containing four types of several billion chemical nucleotides — adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G) and thymine (T) — arranged in a specific sequence, or code, that when transcribed guide the cell into producing specific proteins. (credit: University of California — San Diego)

Molecular biologists at the University of California, San Diego (UC San Diego) have discovered a short sequence of DNA that is essential for turning on (expressing proteins) more than half of all human genes — an achievement that should provide scientists with a better understanding of how human genes are regulated.

Harvard cracks DNA storage, crams 700 terabytes of data into a single gram - ExtremeTech

A bioengineer and geneticist at Harvard’s Wyss Institute have successfully stored 5.5 petabits of data — around 700 terabytes — in a single gram of DNA, smashing the previous DNA data density record by a thousand times.

The work, carried out by George Church and Sri Kosuri, basically treats DNA as just another digital storage device. Instead of binary data being encoded as magnetic regions on a hard drive platter, strands of DNA that store 96 bits are synthesized, with each of the bases (TGAC) representing a binary value (T and G = 1, A and C = 0).

To read the data stored in DNA, you simply sequence it — just as if you were sequencing the human genome — and convert each of the TGAC bases back into binary. To aid with sequencing, each strand of DNA has a 19-bit address block at the start (the red bits in the image below) — so a whole vat of DNA can be sequenced out of order, and then sorted into usable data using the addresses.




Precision engineering from The Almighty at its best.

I have provided evidence to refute your claims of complexity and of the amount of information held, while you are entitled to your beliefs, i am entitled to comprihend the facts as supplied by the very people who mapped, catalogued and published the hgp.

 

[ChristineM]

I would think quantity would equal complexity in some cases. Take the Rubik cube it has 4 colors and 54 tiles. They seem fairly complicated to solve. Also, computers only have on and off switches, but fairly complex programs are written in them.

And brick buildings can be complex structures but ultimately they are made of simple bricks?

A dna molicule is a simple structure.

 

[ChristineM]

Exactly the point of a definition. But how do these definitions do this? How do they hep us to determine if anything actually is supernatural?

And @Misunderstood

Quite he contrary, the definitions were explicit in what is not supernatural but rather vague on what is supernatural.

 

[Muslim-UK]

I have provided evidence to refute your claims of complexity and of the amount of information held, while you are entitled to your beliefs, i am entitled to comprihend the facts as supplied by the very people who mapped, catalogued and published the hgp.

You've done nothing of the sort, other than show how DNA is the most complicated Molecule that exists. Here's a Evolutionary Expert explaining it purely from a Scientific point of view to benefit School Students.....

Mind blowing complexity, but feel free to knock some up in your kitchen, and show us just how uncomplicated it all is.

 

[Misunderstood]

And @Misunderstood

Quite he contrary, the definitions were explicit in what is not supernatural but rather vague on what is supernatural.

OK, as I have said take it up with just about every English dictionary as they all have a similar definition. But since a dictionary is not a good place to find a definition maybe you can give us a better definition, that would help us all to have a proper definition.

 

[Misunderstood]

And brick buildings can be complex structures but ultimately they are made of simple bricks?

A dna molicule is a simple structure.

There are about 115 to 118 known elements, made up of three even smaller particles. So I see your point everything is made up of simple building blocks, thus everything no matter how complex is simple.

So my question is, what makes something complex?

 

[ChristineM]

You've done nothing of the sort, other than show how DNA is the most complicated Molecule that exists. Here's a Evolutionary Expert explaining it purely from a Scientific point of view to benefit School Students.....

Mind blowing complexity, but feel free to knock some up in your kitchen, and show us just how uncomplicated it all is.

Actually i have, that you won't accept basic science is hardly my problem.

Once again you are counting quantity of billions of dna molecules making a structure and claiming it as one complex molecule.

I will make a dna molicule when you provide valid, verifyable evidence of a god?