Atheists watch Ray Comfort's "Evolution vs God"

[Ouroboros]

ok so you can agree in principle that it would make a difference to how species occur and persist if the first specie had a genetic mechanism to alter its own dna right?

Yes. But I don't see how or where that could be in the DNA/RNA. It's well known what molecules and particles make up the DNA and the 4 (5) nucleotides.

Now here is my question to you. If the very first specie had the ability to modify / change / mutate its own dna wouldn't this eliminate the proposed mechanism of random mutation as the driving force of variation and wouldn't this mechanism occurring in the first specie affect how all subsequent species occurred?

If the first specie had the ability to intentionally modify their own DNA, then I just can't see where that kind of information would be stored. The DNA is the smallest memory storage and there isn't any other in there. What, how, and where would you suggest such ability reside? What kind of mechanism would there be to allow this?

Essential amino acids
Essential amino acids cannot be made by the body. As a result, they must come from food.
The nine essential amino acids are: histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, and valine.
Nonessential amino acids
"Nonessential" means that our bodies produce an amino acid, even if we don't get it from the food we eat.
They include: alanine, asparagine, aspartic acid, and glutamic acid.
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002222.htm

Right. We can make some of the amino acids. That's true. I was thinking of the essential ones. They're not produced on the fly or at will. They have to be consumed.

Gene Expression
Genes encode proteins and proteins dictate cell function. Therefore, the thousands of genes expressed in a particular cell determine what that cell can do. Moreover, each step in the flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein provides the cell with a potential control point for self-regulating its functions by adjusting the amount and type of proteins it manufactures.
At any given time, the amount of a particular protein in a cell reflects the balance between that protein's synthetic and degradative biochemical pathways. On the synthetic side of this balance, recall that protein production starts at transcription (DNA to RNA) and continues with translation (RNA to protein). Thus, control of these processes plays a critical role in determining what proteins are present in a cell and in what amounts.
http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gene-expression-14121669

Right.

As a mechanical / bio engineer It is important to understand how the system functions and your body is the greatest system ever encountered beyond those we currently form ourselves. You should take a bit of time to read up on how the cells systems function as it is extremely complex but, it also has some very fundamental points in its functionality that have only been observed in intelligently designed systems in fact, you will find that the cell performs every type of function that any manufacturer does as a normal part of business and much much more.
The cell produces the substrates to form its own structure in one place from stored information and then it sends the building materials from there to another 3 dimensional point in its space at the exact time it is needed in order to be used for the construction.

Sure. It's amazing. As a pantheist, I think it's part of how things are. Life, consciousness, matter, energy, intelligence, all have-you is all one integrated and complete system.

Imagine what kind of system you would have to make simply to move something accurately from one point in space to another point in 3 dimensional space. How simply could you describe such a system to me?

Not very easy, agree. Then imagine how to have a system that describes how to change that 3D construct, and then have yet another meta-layer of information and control that controls and changes that one, and so on. The DNA is currently the most complex data storage and description (3D "blueprint") of a species. I still can't fathom how something even more complex and with more information and processing could exist in the cell that we haven't even discovered yet.

 

[KBC1963]

Yes. But I don't see how or where that could be in the DNA/RNA. It's well known what molecules and particles make up the DNA and the 4 (5) nucleotides. If the first specie had the ability to intentionally modify their own DNA, then I just can't see where that kind of information would be stored. The DNA is the smallest memory storage and there isn't any other in there. What, how, and where would you suggest such ability reside? What kind of mechanism would there be to allow this?

Now make sure you comprehend what I am saying here. I'm not saying the mechanism itself is in the dna.... I am saying that the instructions to manipulate itself is stored there just like the rest of the instructions are stored to form the 3 dimensional creature that comes from it. You should also realize that all the dna which was considered junk because it didn't code for proteins can still code for other information right? Further do you know what percent of the genome we actually have no clue for its purpose?

Think of how many letters fit on a single page and now imagine a stack of pages three hundred feet tall. That's how much information is stored in the DNA inside every human cell: the entire human genome. If you sort through the three billion letters that make up the human genome, you find some surprising things. Only about 1% of the three billion letters directly codes for proteins. Of the rest, about 25% make up genes and their regulatory elements. The function of the remaining letters is still unclear.
https://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/09-how-much-dna-codes-for-protein.html

And if that wasn't impressive enough then this should give you a real jolt if you don't already know about it..... the genome can be read in the backwards direction;

Proteins that read DNA backwards
Over the past decade, biologists have learned to credit RNA with more respect than it once garnered. Previously thought of simply as a chemical intermediate between DNA and protein, a host of RNA oddities that can switch genes off and on has revised that view. Now, a suite of papers published in Science this week promises to add still more complexity by revealing several new classes of peculiar RNA molecules, many of which are created when proteins read DNA backwards.
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081204/full/news.2008.1277.html

Not very easy, agree. Then imagine how to have a system that describes how to change that 3D construct, and then have yet another meta-layer of information and control that controls and changes that one, and so on. The DNA is currently the most complex data storage and description (3D "blueprint") of a species. I still can't fathom how something even more complex and with more information and processing could exist in the cell that we haven't even discovered yet.

We may have discovered something already....

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code
Date: December 12, 2013
Source: University of Washington
Summary:
Scientists have discovered a second code hiding within DNA. The second code contains information that changes how scientists read the instructions contained in DNA and interpret mutations to make sense of health and disease. Genomes use the genetic code to write two separate languages. One describes how proteins are made, and the other instructs the cell on how genes are controlled. One language is written on top of the other.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

The fact is that dna uses a 4 letter coding scheme. Our current designed coding system only uses 2, a simple 0 and a 1. Imagine how much more can be done with a 4 base system.

 

[Ouroboros]

Now make sure you comprehend what I am saying here. I'm not saying the mechanism itself is in the dna.... I am saying that the instructions to manipulate itself is stored there just like the rest of the instructions are stored to form the 3 dimensional creature that comes from it. You should also realize that all the dna which was considered junk because it didn't code for proteins can still code for other information right? Further do you know what percent of the genome we actually have no clue for its purpose?

I see what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification. That's very interesting and I have nothing to say agains it.

 

[KBC1963]

I see what you're saying now. Thanks for the clarification. That's very interesting and I have nothing to say agains it.

It's amazing to think of just how complex the first specie had to be just for the conceptual evolutionary mechanisms to have the possibility of actually functioning in the way scientists think they do.
Most people just consider life a black box of mysterious chemical reactions which if you only look at them individually appear as tree's within the dark forest but, once you can start to realize and perceive that these chemical reactions are not simply happening at the whim of chance but are being propagated in both a temporal (time) and spacial (3 dimensions) precision then you begin to feel the enormity of the system that would be required to have occurred in order for the first specie to have any chance of susceptibility to the proposed evolutionary forces.

Before the fairytale conceptual evolutionary mechanisms could even be considered applicable to being able to modify that very first specie it had to already contain;

1) a genetic form that could store information
2) a precision code reader
3) a precision code translator
4) a precision code repair system
5) informational templates to produce specific substrates
6) informational templates to define precise production times for the substrates
7) informational templates to form the machinery that would handle the substrates within its 3 dimensional space
8) informational templates to control the spatiotemporal movement of the substrates to form and repair its 3 dimensional structure
9) informational templates to control the repeatability of its final architecture (3 dimensional form) (blueprint)
10) a protection system (otherwise life would have ended at the first invader)

And most likely this one other item

11) a variability mechanism to allow its offspring to adapt to varying conditions.

And just think..... This first specie could not have formed with any assistance of the evolutionary mechanisms. It truly would have to have arrived on the scene already fully functional. Poof kinda the way the Avalon and Cambrian creatures appeared to have just showed up without precursor.

 

[viole]

The fact is that dna uses a 4 letter coding scheme. Our current designed coding system only uses 2, a simple 0 and a 1. Imagine how much more can be done with a 4 base system.

I am afraid that is not true. There is nothing you cannot do with a binary system that you can do with a quartenary one. In other words, the binary system is complete. You can code any information with that. The proof of that is obvious. After all we use more than four symbols for our alphabet and yet, it can be easily coded in binary as well, like any computer guy knows.

So, your argument shows only that we are more parsimonous in our designs than the designer who supposedly designed us. He should be proud of us by outperforming Him

Ciao

- viole

 

[KBC1963]

I am afraid that is not true. There is nothing you cannot do with a binary system that you can do with a quartenary one. In other words, the binary system is complete.

Are you sure.? Then describe how you might compress the information contained in a binary code into a smaller space? Remember, binary's entire function was to make unary more compact.

Genetics
Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (7 characters) vs (= binary 10 00 11 11 00 01 00). (14 characters)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_numeral_system

Wow it looks like I can do something with a quaternary system that can't be done with a binary system. go figure....

 

[Ouroboros]

Before the fairytale conceptual evolutionary mechanisms could even be considered applicable to being able to modify that very first specie it had to already contain;

Hang on. You linked and posted material to prove your point from those fairytale scientists. You trust them as far as proving how right you are, but distrust them when it comes to their "fairytale"?

1) a genetic form that could store information
2) a precision code reader
3) a precision code translator
4) a precision code repair system
5) informational templates to produce specific substrates
6) informational templates to define precise production times for the substrates
7) informational templates to form the machinery that would handle the substrates within its 3 dimensional space
8) informational templates to control the spatiotemporal movement of the substrates to form and repair its 3 dimensional structure
9) informational templates to control the repeatability of its final architecture (3 dimensional form) (blueprint)
10) a protection system (otherwise life would have ended at the first invader)

And most likely this one other item

11) a variability mechanism to allow its offspring to adapt to varying conditions.

So... there are gaps in science, and the way to solve that is to fill those gaps of knowledge with an assumption of an superfluous explanation?

And just think..... This first specie could not have formed with any assistance of the evolutionary mechanisms.

True. However, there's plenty of evidence to show that there are other physical and chemical mechanisms that could have.

It truly would have to have arrived on the scene already fully functional. Poof kinda the way the Avalon and Cambrian creatures appeared to have just showed up without precursor.

Prokaryotes are far simpler than eukaryotes, and it's not impossible that exists even simpler middle-stage forms of life.

When I studied anthropology and in particular the science behind evolution, there wasn't much of focus on the "randomness" of the mutations. Just because mutations could be directed or even guided by some mystical force, doesn't undo or contradict evolutionary theory at large. Evolution is about "change over time". It's about that species evolve. Exactly how that is done, that's still what's being researched. Perhaps there is some higher being or intellect guiding it, I won't reject such a notion, but I don't think that the whole theory of evolution is wrong because there's some added pieces to the puzzle.

 

[KBC1963]

Before the fairytale conceptual evolutionary mechanisms could even be considered applicable to being able to modify that very first specie it had to already contain;

Hang on. You linked and posted material to prove your point from those fairytale scientists. You trust them as far as proving how right you are, but distrust them when it comes to their "fairytale"?

I don't see anywhere in that clip you posted that I asserted the scientists were fairytale. You want to point it out? I trust the evidence from the scientific method. Speculations and unbacked assumptions do not a fact make.

So... there are gaps in science, and the way to solve that is to fill those gaps of knowledge with an assumption of an superfluous explanation?

What gaps? define all the points that I made that would not be absolutely necessary for the first specie to exist and form offspring

And just think..... This first specie could not have formed with any assistance of the evolutionary mechanisms.

True. However, there's plenty of evidence to show that there are other physical and chemical mechanisms that could have.

really? there are scientific method based evidences that such a formation can occur by mechanisms other than the evolutionary ones?

It truly would have to have arrived on the scene already fully functional. Poof kinda the way the Avalon and Cambrian creatures appeared to have just showed up without precursor..

Prokaryotes are far simpler than eukaryotes, and it's not impossible that exists even simpler middle-stage forms of life..

By simpler please define what components I specified that you feel can be removed and still allow the specie to exist and produce viable offspring.

When I studied anthropology and in particular the science behind evolution, there wasn't much of focus on the "randomness" of the mutations. Just because mutations could be directed or even guided by some mystical force, doesn't undo or contradict evolutionary theory at large. Evolution is about "change over time". It's about that species evolve. Exactly how that is done, that's still what's being researched. Perhaps there is some higher being or intellect guiding it, I won't reject such a notion, but I don't think that the whole theory of evolution is wrong because there's some added pieces to the puzzle.

Evolution IS about "change over time" based on specifiable mechanisms. If all evolutionary theory had to say was that crap changes and we don't know how it does then there would be no discussion on the subject but, we all know that it is not that simple. Scientists have promoted their hypothesis on how the change over time can occur and they have named these mechanisms in english no less and called them random mutation and natural selection, so, you can try to down play the importance of these all you like but these proposed mechanisms of how the changes are able form new species are the central points of debate.
You may not think the whole theory of evolution could be wrong simply because some pieces may need to be added to the puzzle but, I am not asserting the need to add anything to it. I have plainly stated that one of the mechanisms proposed to be a causal support for the hypothesis of how change occurs may not even apply at all so I am adding nothing to the evolutionary concept, I am subtracting.

You say you might allow that some intelligent agency could be guiding how evolution happens but the real question on the subject of evolution is whether intelligence was necessary, not just for its origin but for how it is able to persist. If the first specie of life came pre-programmed to persist by forming its own variants to be able to adapt to the changing environmental variables then what NATURAL forces or mechanisms are required to allow them to persist since the evolutionary argument is that species come to exist by the forces of nature alone. A hypothesis of cause cannot be both true and false at the same time. It is either true that natural forces can accomplish the job alone or it is true that it requires goal directed intelligent design.

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't see anywhere in that clip you posted that I asserted the scientists were fairytale. You want to point it out? I trust the evidence from the scientific method. Speculations and unbacked assumptions do not a fact make.

Sorry for the wording. What I meant is that the references you used were from scientists in the evolutionary field. The evolutionary science which you call a fairytale. So they're basically fairytale scientists, i.e. scientists researching fairytales (if evolution is a fairytale). You put trust in them regarding directed evolution but not any trust in them when it comes to evolution in general.

Directed evolution is still evolution. I don't see your need to call it a fairytale, do you?

What gaps? define all the points that I made that would not be absolutely necessary for the first specie to exist and form offspring

You mean I need to point out gaps to show you that there are gaps so i can make an argument that we shouldn't fill those gaps with some mysterious supernatural power to answer the same gaps? Why? It's enough to know that if there are gaps we don't have to fill them.

really? there are scientific method based evidences that such a formation can occur by mechanisms other than the evolutionary ones?

By simpler please define what components I specified that you feel can be removed and still allow the specie to exist and produce viable offspring.

Simpler in the sense of shorter and simpler genome.

Evolution IS about "change over time" based on specifiable mechanisms. If all evolutionary theory had to say was that crap changes and we don't know how it does then there would be no discussion on the subject but, we all know that it is not that simple. Scientists have promoted their hypothesis on how the change over time can occur and they have named these mechanisms in english no less and called them random mutation and natural selection, so, you can try to down play the importance of these all you like but these proposed mechanisms of how the changes are able form new species are the central points of debate.

Sure. Let's say mutations are directed (all of them? even genetic defects are directed by some supernatural intelligence?), that still means that species evolve, even if the necessary mutations happens to be directed. In other words, evolution is still true, and not a fairytale.

You may not think the whole theory of evolution could be wrong simply because some pieces may need to be added to the puzzle but, I am not asserting the need to add anything to it. I have plainly stated that one of the mechanisms proposed to be a causal support for the hypothesis of how change occurs may not even apply at all so I am adding nothing to the evolutionary concept, I am subtracting.

You were quoting articles from scientists who research in how mutations are directed. That doesn't undo evolution at all. It only means the "natural" part of natural evolution has to be revisited, not the fact that species evolve. How can they research how species evolve and find evidence for directed mutations unless there are mutations to be observed?

You say you might allow that some intelligent agency could be guiding how evolution happens but the real question on the subject of evolution is whether intelligence was necessary, not just for its origin but for how it is able to persist. If the first specie of life came pre-programmed to persist by forming its own variants to be able to adapt to the changing environmental variables then what NATURAL forces or mechanisms are required to allow them to persist since the evolutionary argument is that species come to exist by the forces of nature alone. A hypothesis of cause cannot be both true and false at the same time. It is either true that natural forces can accomplish the job alone or it is true that it requires goal directed intelligent design.

I have no serious problem with an intelligent agency behind evolution, but it won't undo evolutionary theory as much as you think. There are many mutations that must be random or by chance, unless you consider cancers, copy-errors, analogous mutations, and other to also be directed with intent.

 

[KBC1963]

Sorry for the wording. What I meant is that the references you used were from scientists in the evolutionary field. The evolutionary science which you call a fairytale. So they're basically fairytale scientists, i.e. scientists researching fairytales (if evolution is a fairytale). You put trust in them regarding directed evolution but not any trust in them when it comes to evolution in general.

Scientists are typically competent observers when it comes to the scientific method, this is without doubt. Now what they imagine / assert as possible without having a method of testing it is where the fairytales come in. People throughout history have formed explanations for things they don't understand and that has never made them any less capable observers but it does draw the line where real science ends and fairytales begin.

Directed evolution is still evolution. I don't see your need to call it a fairytale, do you?.

Not according to the defined mechanisms that are intended to support the evolutionary hypothesis and if it turns out that species do originate and vary by a mechanism that came with the first life then there is no naturally based force that is causal for supporting the evolutionary hypothesis. We can simply say that life changes over time with no need for someone to theorize that it is changing because the evidence that change occurs is plain to see by any observer right?
Now if you or anyone else just like Darwin wants to theorize how it changes over time then you can form a hypothesis and call it evolution or devolution or revolution.... it really doesn't matter what you call it. In the end the hypothesis stands on how supported the hypothesized points are that are intended to explain it.
This is the scientific method, you form a hypothesis to explain something you don't understand and then you formulate a scientific method to test the validity of your hypothesis. If all the testing evidence isn't explained by your hypothesis then the hypothesis has failed to do what it was intended to do... Explain the phenomena.

So... there are gaps in science, and the way to solve that is to fill those gaps of knowledge with an assumption of an superfluous explanation?.

What gaps? define all the points that I made that would not be absolutely necessary for the first specie to exist and form offspring.

You mean I need to point out gaps to show you that there are gaps so i can make an argument that we shouldn't fill those gaps with some mysterious supernatural power to answer the same gaps? Why? It's enough to know that if there are gaps we don't have to fill them.

You used my list as the reference for your reply inferring that there were gaps in science. I don't see any gaps in science as would concern my list but you are free to point out what in my list science has a gap in.

really? there are scientific method based evidences that such a formation can occur by mechanisms other than the evolutionary ones? By simpler please define what components I specified that you feel can be removed and still allow the specie to exist and produce viable offspring.

Simpler in the sense of shorter and simpler genome.

You cannot move the goal post any further back, we are talking about the first specie here. How much shorter could the genome get and still make a viable organism with the capability of forming viable offspring? Before the first specie the evolutionary mechanism had no proposed power so what mechanisms could make a first specie and just how simple could the system of this first specie be and still be able to produce offspring for the proposed evolutionary mechanism to have an effect?

Sure. Let's say mutations are directed (all of them? even genetic defects are directed by some supernatural intelligence?), that still means that species evolve, even if the necessary mutations happens to be directed. In other words, evolution is still true, and not a fairytale.

Why are you making an assumption that I am positing some supernatural intelligence as a cause for mutations? Let's try Occams razor here and simply say that minimally it could have been an intelligence that preceded life on earth could have designed life to first terraform the earth and then populate it. See no gods being posited.

You were quoting articles from scientists who research in how mutations are directed. That doesn't undo evolution at all. It only means the "natural" part of natural evolution has to be revisited, not the fact that species evolve.

Mankind has known for thousands of years that species can vary over time and there has never been a need for another naming convention to describe this fact and we absolutely didn't need a hypothesis to verify that organisms change over time so, why would any sane person want to formulate a hypothesis simply to state that change occurs?
You should also realize that the scientists in the papers I referenced still believe the systems that direct mutation came about by the mechanisms of RM and NS so, they are simply thinking that the hypothesis doesn't need any name changing but, rather a simple moving of the goal post a little further back.

I have no serious problem with an intelligent agency behind evolution, but it won't undo evolutionary theory as much as you think. There are many mutations that must be random or by chance, unless you consider cancers, copy-errors, analogous mutations, and other to also be directed with intent.

Are you familiar with having any designed systems you use breakdown? Would you ever describe a designed system as being dependent on the forces that caused its breakdown for it existence or persistence? Evolutionary theory was, is and will continue to be the hypothesis that is intended to explain how natural causes make all of life that we observe. You as an individual may allow for the possibility that intelligence could have possibly had a hand in explaining what we see but, you would not be accepted by the scientific establishment. You would simply become another creationist.

 

[Ouroboros]

You as an individual may allow for the possibility that intelligence could have possibly had a hand in explaining what we see but, you would not be accepted by the scientific establishment. You would simply become another creationist.

Yeah. You're probably right.