Creationists: Here's your chance

[painted wolf]

Great, I hope you don't mind but I can't start tonight... I have to get home and get my home ready for a visit with my family this weekend. But I'll start as soon as I am able when I get back.

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

sounds good, enjoy the family time.

 

[painted wolf]

Thanks, it was fantastic!

lets see... how about some basic heredity for starts.

In many sexually reproducing species the offspring are a combination of traits (eye color, height, disease resistance ect.) that they receive from their parents.
This doesn't work for all species... but this is how it works in humans so we will stick with this.

Lets take a simple real world example that will show the different ways inherited traits show up in offspring. For this example we will use flowers (you can do experiments with flowers on your own if you want to demonstrate these types of trait expression)
Not all traits are able to be seen in living things. Many of them are hidden.
There is only one trait and it is controlled by only one gene in this example.

Red flowers bred with Red flowers = Red offspring that when they reproduce also produce red flowered offspring. This is called "true breeding".

"true breeding" Red flowers bred with "true breeding" White flowers = Red offspring. This is called Complete Dominance... one trait is able to overpower the other and keep it from being expressed. The offspring still have the genes for white flowers, but they can not show it physically. This makes the "white flower" trait "recessive"... that is, it hides in the background, overpowered by the "dominant" trait.
If you inter-breed the all red offspring you will find that some of the 'grandchildren' flowers will be white. 1 in 4 to be exact.
In humans blue eyes is a recessive trait.

Red flower + White flower = Pink flowers
This example is called "incomplete dominance"... both traits are evenly expressed and produce a new intermediate trait.
A real world example is 4 o'clock plant. (the exact ratio of the offspring will be half pink, one fourth red and one fourth white)

Red flower + white flower = red and white speckled flowers.
This is "co-dominance"... both traits are expressed, but they interfere with each other and end up being expressed in different places from one another.
A good real world example is human blood types A, B and AB.

This is getting into technical terms, but I think it will be useful to try to explain... hopefully I'll do a good job of it.

When talking in shorthand biologists often use the word Allele... this just means a variant of an expressed trait like eye color. Thus, there would be an allele for blue eyes and one for brown eyes... it's the same gene, just slightly different copies.
In our flowers Red and White would be alleles as would Pink and Speckled.

How was this as a start?

wa:do

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_Wolf

It doesn't.... you already admit you don't understand DNA... how can you say it is a language?

Lets take this example you gave and I'll tell you why you are mistaken.

I did not admit I did not understand ANYTHING about DNA, don’t put words in my mouth. I admitted I did not understand YOU. Get it strait now. And also yes, I admit I don’t understand EVERYTHING about DNA, even though I have read tons of articles and even books on the issue. But apparently reading all that is not enough, which I don’t mind reading more, but for goodness sakes I want to get to the bottom of this.

I can say it’s a language based on what I do understand of it and what others who are scientists have said about it as well.

First off... characters and letters are the same thing.

First off… characters and letters are slightly different. The letter is this > A. The character is the SHAPE of the letter, notice it has the shape of a roof, with a slash in the middle, line going up left and then down left and then a line crossing to attach both. That’s the character. Now this letter > B is a different letter then A and it also has a different character, or structure.

A nuclotide is a single molecule that among other functions forms the basic backbone of RNA and DNA. They are made up of three parts: a sugar, a nitrogen nucleobase and a phosphate region.
There are four nucleotides (in DNA) that come on one of two shapes: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Guanine (G), Cytosine (C)
In RNA the T is replaced by Uracil (U)

Yea, and? The nucleotide is the character or the structure of DNA. You even said it yourself “FORMS the basic backbone of DNA”.

A always pairs with T (or U in RNA) and G always pairs with C. This alone makes the word analogy useless. But lets continue shall we.

This is misleading, granted yes, A truly does always pair with T and G always pairs with C, granted, but along the huge strand of DNA, the code is not always the SAME. Sometimes it can be like this
AT
TA
GC
GC
TA
TA
AT
CG
AT
GC
TA
So, your wrong AGAIN! It does have the hallmarks of language or a code of information, yes it does!
Just because A always pairs with T does not mean it doesn’t vary in its sequence going down the latter. A is not always on the same side of the latter, likewise the G is not always on the same side, and AT can go down the latter a few times in a row and likewise GC can.

Remember, each language is different, LIKEWISE WITH DNA LANGUAGE, it’s not English!

Look at Hebrew for example, it’s a language, but one must read it BACKWARDS! It’s a language, but it’s NOT COMPLETELY LIKE ENGLISH, that’s for sure. Just because DNA is different in ways then English does not mean nothing, of course it’s going to have some differences, because well, it’s NOT ENGLISH, but it still has the hallmarks of LANGUAGE. Yes it does. Look at the Chinese language, it looks WAY different then English, but it still has the hallmarks of language.

Who wrote that scrip huh, huh?

That’s it, admit it now…… INTILLIGENCE….. yea buddy.

Codons are three nucleotide sequences that attract particular amino acids when a cell is using DNA/RNA to make proteins.

Right…..and that means the codons are the information that tell

There are only twenty amino acids used by living things on Earth out of more than a hundred possible. An amino acid is not made by a codon[/quote]

How are the amino acids made then? Or where do they come from?

and many codons are redundant...

Meaning you don’t know what that particular information is for. Read the quotes above on that one.

 

[Jollybear]

thus AAA and AAG both attract the amino acid Lysine while ACU, ACC, ACA and ACG all attract Theronine.

Ok

One codon tells the ribosome (the cellular piece that assembles proteins) to start working: AUG while three tell it to stop: UAA, UGA and UAG.

“TELLS IT”? it TELLS IT? So the ribosome READS IT? All of that means LANGUAGE!

Again, this is nothing like a letter or language.

Of course it is language, it’s not LIKE language, it IS language. You even said so yourself “tells it”!

This whole process acts as a assembly line, there is intelligence going on in this level in and outside the cell.

This is also why changing a single nuclotide in a codon is such a big deal.... you can totally change the function of the product.

Yea, and the point is? Of course changing the INFORMATION in the language would make the ribosome read a different message, and thus do a DIFFERENT job getting done in the end product being built.

Amino acids build proteins and depending on the number and types of amino acids they will have different shapes and do different things under different circumstances. Proteins can also do different jobs depending on where and how they are produced. For example a single protein can be an enzyme or a hormone or a neurotransmitter depending on what cell it is made in and where it goes.

Ok

A gene is a set of codons that (sometimes) complete a protein. It starts with the "start codon" and ends with one of the "end" codons. Genes can have more than one function (making a hormone vs. a neurotransmitter) or they can be linked in such a way that one will always work at the same time as another. Others essentially do nothing because their start or stop codon has been disabled and are called non-coding regions or "junk DNA" (this is actually the bulk of our genome).

You don’t know if it’s junk.

Unlike words.

Unlike words? No, the ribosome just knows what parts to select to read.

Plus if it was just always about reactions or attractions like what you said above “AAA and AAG both attract the amino acid Lysine while ACU, ACC, ACA and ACG all attract Theronine” then the ribosome should always code these none coding regions with attractions, but since they don’t, it shows there is information content going on here.

An Operon is a group of genes that work together to make a messenger RNA (mRNA).

Why did you call it “messenger”?

(notice this doesn't make a protein like a single gene does, they both make different things unlike language)

So what if they make different things? I am not following your thought here how it cannot still be language?

They require three regulating parts to function: Promoter, Operator, and Terminator. Without any of these three functioning the Operon itself (which can be one or more genes long) does not work.
Operons only function under the right conditions otherwise they are repressed by a protein that binds to them and prevents them from working. Mutations can also change how Operons work.
Unlike a Sentence.

How does the working or being stopped from working have to do with language or sentences? Like a person building a house, well his working has nothing to do with language, but the information that tells him how to build the house, that has something to do with language.

nothing prevents this sentence from working without a period at the end or a capitol letter at the front or any other punctuation

“Here is a quote I found “If DNA can be thought of as the language of life, then the four bases can be seen as letters and the codons as arrangements of letters, or words. But like English, DNA's language is more than words. Some codons function as punctuation marks, containing instructions to stop or start manufacturing a protein. This chemically simple yet stunningly complex DNA molecule dictates not only what proteins the organism will be made of, but how these proteins are to be arranged.”

 

[Jollybear]

For example: lac Operon helps E.coli to digest Lactose. Without lactose around the Operon is shut off by a protein that binds to the Operator (called the lactose repressor protein). When the cell has Lactose inside it the repressor protein loosens and lets go and an enzyme called RNA Polymerase binds to it and makes an mRNA that goes to another part of the cell to make something else.
Very very unlike language.

What? The molecular machines building stuff or making stuff is a different part then the language part. But they get there know how to build from the information or message or language. And the times they read and translate, how do they get that? They are programmed to do that.

A Regulon is a scattered group of genes and or operons that are switched on under the same circumstances. Unlike a paragraph the don't have to be anywhere near one another, nor do they have to make anything together.

Because it’s an instruction manual, it don’t have to be near each other. It’s not a story book. It’s an instruction manual. Watch this:
Take the four legs, and screw them on the chair
Take the light bulb and screw it in the light socket

Two parts, but you can separate them by all means, because it’s an instruction manual.

If you were telling a story though, it would not make sense to separate them.

For your language analogy to work, I would have to scatter random words and sentences, that have nothing to do with each other... other than you need to find and read them at the same time... through this post. They wont make sense except they all switch on under the same circumstances.

It’s not a story book it’s an instruction manual. And the molecular machines are programmed to read it correctly.

Another flaw is that only bacteria have regulons. For your analogy to keep working, only newspapers would have paragraphs.

You said above that regulons are a scattered group of genes. Humans have genes, but here your saying only bacteria have regulons (genes)?

Plus, again, it’s an instruction manual, it can be broken up into sections.

The real problem with your language analogy... is that it tricks you into thinking you understand something that you have admitted you don't.

No, I admit I don’t understand YOU, and on the subject itself, I still have MORE to understand, I just HATE trying to remember all the names and functions of the stuff in the cell, not to mention I hate the names they come up with to call some of these parts. If I can’t identify with it, I get frustrated with it, and that goes for not just reading atheistic articles, but also intelligent design and creation articles just the same. I would like to have access to a strong microscope and study the cell ALL BY MYSELF without hearing a darn voice as I am looking at an animation of it just narrowing in on a few stuff.

That’s just me though.

It tricks you into making false conclusions and saying things that don't make sense to anyone who actually knows about the subject.

Yea but some scientists who are creationists have looked directly and studied the cell and they disagree with you. So it would be best not to just say “it don’t make sense” but to keep arguing against it.

The language analogy is a lie... but you understand language so it makes you feel comfortable and helps you accept things that you can't tell are false.

I don’t think it is a lie.

Yes, it's called the Human Genome project.
It took 13 years to assemble but now anyone can look at any (or all) of the human genetic sequence.

Human Genome Project Information

Just because they assembled it does not mean they analyzed it all. And from the website you gave me (which I like the website by the way, thank you for giving it to me) here is a few quotes that I find interesting
“Though the HGP is finished, analyses of the data will continue for many years. Follow this ongoing research on our Milestones page.”

Another quote that confirms this quote on this part of the same website
“Deriving meaningful knowledge from the DNA sequence will define research through the coming decades to inform our understanding of biological systems. This enormous task will require the expertise and creativity of tens of thousands of scientists from varied disciplines in both the public and private sectors worldwide.” http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/project/info.shtml

Also another confirmation from the same website right here on the same link I just gave to you says.
“The functions are unknown for over 50% of discovered genes.”

Also I was listening on youtube francis Collins (head of the human genome project) say that if he had someone read the DNA none stop for 24 hours, 7 days a week, that is have one person take a turn and then another and keep rotating with more people, it would take 31 years to complete the whole read. [youtube]DjJAWuzno9Y[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjJAWuzno9Y&feature=related obviously that is not done.

So, in short, YOUR WRONG, they did not analyze every single millions of miles long of this great encyclopedia called the DNA. Your simply wrong, even according to the website itself THAT YOU YOURSELF GAVE ME. You just shot yourself in the foot.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm saying that it is out of date... a quote saying that "nothing" has happened or "something" is impossible...from ten years ago is silly. That is like quoting someone from the 1940's saying space flight is impossible and scientists can't figure it out. Worse really given the extreme speed that genetics has advanced. Relying on decades old science leaves you behind and uninformed.

It’s not the year that matters; it’s refuting what it says that matters most. Also if the Human Genome project was completed in 2003 and this quote I gave you was from 1999 that is not TOO far away, that is still pretty good.

Plus if you want to get picky about that, then the website you gave me is meaningless because it’s OUT OF DATE, the date on it from the bottom says August 12 2009.

So, you can’t use that website, sorry, just holding you to your own standard, fair enough?

You see how meaningless that is now?

I was unable to find any scientific papers with his name on them when doing a simple search on Google Scholar or any other scientific paper search engine. If you can find one, I'll gladly change my mind.

I cannot find one he did recently, but there is one he did in 1999 and I quoted it. And that is not too far from 2003

I know... but it's to demonstrate that you are talking as if you understand a subject that you do not. You are claiming things as facts that are flat out wrong.
I'm sorry, I know it's not intentional on your part... but it is frustrating on mine.

Actually it just dawned on me what you meant, the AA, referring to adenine right? Yea, those weird names they put on things again that we got to remember.

Maybe you know, but why don’t scientists name things that every day people use in there every day language? Why do they have to come up with these out of the world names for stuff?

Also the human Genome project calls the DNA words and information. So….how am I stating something that is not a fact? Instead of getting frustrated with me, get frustrated with them, because it’s THEM that would be speaking things that are none factual and misleading (that’s IF they are). Do you see what I am saying? I am not dishonest, all of this information is passed down to me and to most of us second handedly, we do not have DIRECT insight into the data, it’s passed down to us and then explained at the same time. So, don’t get frustrated with me, if the human Genome project calls it words and information (which it did) then what am I to believe? That they are liars?

I never suggested it would be evolution... Evolution is a change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. (an allele is an expressed trait, like hair length)
Change in a single individual or even a single generation is not evolution. Evolution takes more than one generation and it happens at population levels not individual ones.

I really try not to talk over any ones head... but, you need to get these false analogies out of yours. This is a complex subject and you need to start with the basics before you try to grasp the details. You simply can not expect to understand how genes work without understanding what a gene is or does. It is not a word, not part of a sentence or anything like it.

Ok, if it’s not a word or a language then why does the human Genome project say it is? [youtube]XuUpnAz5y1g[/youtube]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuUpnAz5y1g

I can explain genetics to you.. but not if you refuse to listen to what I have to say and really want to try to learn.

But watch this now, what you are teaching me about genetics, you LEARNED from someone else or some other book, and that book got that information from someone else, and then someone had DIRECT insight into the data and what he passed down to you, comes with his explanations. But other people (scientists who believe in design) have disagreements with them.

So that said, what you are teaching me, how do I know it’s not SCREWED? I am not saying YOUR deliberately screwing it, but how do you know that your information you got is not screwed?

Otherwise I'm just wasting my time.

No, you’re not wasting your time.

It doesn't "mean" anything in English. It's not a word.
ACG is one of several groups of three molecules that attract the molecule Theronine: HO2CCH(NH2)CH(OH)CH3
Which as a descriptive cartoon looks like this:

That’s like saying all the ink in that book that attracts to the paper and so sticks to it, is NOT information because it’s ink that attracts or sticks to the paper. It don’t work. DNA acts like a language.

I seen the animations how it works and just by looking at it, there appears to be intelligence there.

Fracture Modes in Human Teeth -- Lee et al. 88 (3): 224 -- Journal of Dental Research

I don’t understand how the website proved reconstructions were reliable. The website was not even talking about reconstructions.

This link says reconstructions are subjective and says why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_facial_reconstruction

Like I said.... smokescreen... why don't you provide some evidence that disease or mutation did it? You are the one claiming it as a possibility... I won't waste my time on your fools errand showing you every disease known to man.

You also made a claim that there are no diseases that account for what is in the fossil record. So how do you know that? You said that, so you provide evidence that your statement is true.

You obviously chose to ignore everything I said about the picture....
but, an example of a good mutation is lactose tolerance in some populations of adult humans.

Question, is that a mutation or is that genetic engineering? How do you know it’s mutation that did that?

Also even if it was a mutation, notice they are STILL humans, they did not evolve into something other than human.

 

[Jollybear]

You weren't paying attention again. I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time.

Ok, try again, I had said
“So if there is lots of these modern fish, land/water breathers in the fossil record, then they were here from scratch.”

Genetics, molecular analysis, cladistics, phylogenetics the fossil record....

Those are just words to me, fancy words, can you tell me how do you know the reptiles split from the emphibian? Details please.

Not always... not all of them eat the same things or in the same part of the water column or at the same times... They compete, but only when they directly compete will one species likely die out from it.

So, your speculating?

And still even if your right, the fish is still a fish.

Not necessarily... those that have traits that allow them to stay a step ahead of the predators will reproduce and change the traits that the population has... traits that are adaptive will spread and the species will evolve over time.
Remember, individuals do not evolve... populations do.

Ok, but still they are still fish. Just more FITTER kind of fish.

Where do you get this idea?
The predators will adapt to the new environment and evolve to fit into it just like the prey did... otherwise they wouldn't be able to follow.

If the predator follows the new mutated fish and eats this new good mutated fish, how then does the new mutated fish evolve?

seeing as RNA is needed to make a protein, but proteins are not needed to make RNA... RNA.

What is RNA made of?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Those are just words to me, fancy words, can you tell me how do you know the reptiles split from the emphibian? Details please.

For someone who claims to of read books on genetics you're sure not up on any other area of biology.

If the predator follows the new mutated fish and eats this new good mutated fish, how then does the new mutated fish evolve?

... And clearly you have absolutely no grasp whatsoever about how natural selection works.

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

For someone who claims to of read books on genetics you're sure not up on any other area of biology.

I did not claim I read everything. Did I? Did I claim that I read everything, huh? Did I? come on, answer it big mouth. Truth is, I actually admitted I did NOT know or read everything. Did you not read that part? I gauss not. So before shooting your mouth off, make sure about what I said or did not say first. Perhaps approach it with a QUESTION, huh? Maybe say “Jollybear what books have you read actually about genetics or what articles?

And I would tell you, and I would be HONEST about it as well. Ok?

Gosh that irritates me so bad.

And clearly you have absolutely no grasp whatsoever about how natural selection works.

Apparently you were not reading the full context of me and Painted_wolf’s conversation on that point. You need to be more careful about that. Isn’t it obvious to you that there is mountains of posts in this thread? Can’t you use your intuitive side to realize we covered a lot about natural selection as well.

Come on man. Clue in.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Immortal_flame



I did not claim I read everything. Did I? Did I claim that I read everything, huh? Did I? come on, answer it big mouth. Truth is, I actually admitted I did NOT know or read everything. Did you not read that part? I gauss not. So before shooting your mouth off, make sure about what I said or did not say first. Perhaps approach it with a QUESTION, huh? Maybe say “Jollybear what books have you read actually about genetics or what articles?

And I would tell you, and I would be HONEST about it as well. Ok?

Did I say that you claimed you'd read everything?

I just think it's strange that a person who claims to have read "books on genetics" would not know what "Genetics, molecular analysis, cladistics, phylogenetics the fossil record" are, and consider such words and phrases "fancy".

You can't seem to decide whether you're informed or not. Make up your mind.

Gosh that irritates me so bad.



Apparently you were not reading the full context of me and Painted_wolf’s conversation on that point. You need to be more careful about that. Isn’t it obvious to you that there is mountains of posts in this thread? Can’t you use your intuitive side to realize we covered a lot about natural selection as well.

Come on man. Clue in.

You're a defensive little tyke, ain'tcha?

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

Did I say that you claimed you'd read everything?

I just think it's strange that a person who claims to have read "books on genetics" would not know what "Genetics, molecular analysis, cladistics, phylogenetics the fossil record" are, and consider such words and phrases "fancy".

You can't seem to decide whether you're informed or not. Make up your mind.

I can’t believe this, you actually DID IT AGAIN. You have the nerve to do that again. What is wrong with you? Did I claim I read textbooks on genetics? No I didn’t, did I? I said a read a few books that talked about it generally. And I read one book by Francis Collins who talked more about it. But I did not read any textbook on it. I also read tons of articles, too many to count that talked about it. But, to be honest, cladistics and phylogenetics is the first time I ever heard those words in my life. I’m not kidding you. I already know what molecular analysis is, but I did not bother to look up the other ones in the dictionary. Plus, even if I did know what all these were, still they are just words, it does not tell me anything about how you all know how the reptiles split from the amphibians.

You're a defensive little tyke, ain'tcha?

Yes at this moment in this case I am because you assumed things without asking or making sure of those assumptions first. I wish the world would stop doing that, making assumptions about other people. Communication needs to be built up more and less assumptions made.

Here is the truth about me, these are the facts.

I don’t know everything about biology, that is the data, and I don’t remember all the stuff I DID read about it, namely because of the fancy words they use are just too many to look up in the dictionary, so I just did not bother to do it. I like language that I can identify with. Why should I read something and then be like “oh my gosh, I need a translator now”. That just irritates the heck out of me.

There, that is the facts about me IN THIS CASE. So, yes, I am informed, but no, I can’t remember all that information because a lot of it I can’t identify with and I did not bother to use the dictionary for that many stuff.

And PS, some things I am not informed on, their's more to read.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

ImmortalFlame



I can’t believe this, you actually DID IT AGAIN. You have the nerve to do that again. What is wrong with you? Did I claim I read textbooks on genetics? No I didn’t, did I? I said a read a few books that talked about it generally. And I read one book by Francis Collins who talked more about it. But I did not read any textbook on it. I also read tons of articles, too many to count that talked about it. But, to be honest, cladistics and phylogenetics is the first time I ever heard those words in my life. I’m not kidding you. I already know what molecular analysis is, but I did not bother to look up the other ones in the dictionary. Plus, even if I did know what all these were, still they are just words, it does not tell me anything about how you all know how the reptiles split from the amphibians.

Here is what you said:

"And also yes, I admit I don’t understand EVERYTHING about DNA, even though I have read tons of articles and even books on the issue."

Don't blame me for getting the impression that you'd read books on genetics based on the fact that you claimed to have done so.

It's quite simple really. The fact that you'd claim to of read books on the issue and yet do not know or care to understand the terms associated with it in various fields - and, in fact, mock someone for having mentioned them - does not bode well for your credibility.

Yes at this moment in this case I am because you assumed things without asking or making sure of those assumptions first. I wish the world would stop doing that, making assumptions about other people. Communication needs to be built up more and less assumptions made.

You said you'd read books on genetics. I fail to see where I assumed anything that you hadn't already claimed.

Here is the truth about me, these are the facts.

I don’t know everything about biology, that is the data, and I don’t remember all the stuff I DID read about it, namely because of the fancy words they use are just too many to look up in the dictionary, so I just did not bother to do it. I like language that I can identify with. Why should I read something and then be like “oh my gosh, I need a translator now”. That just irritates the heck out of me.

So, in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about or what scientists are talking about?

Why are you even here debating this in that case? I'm just curious.

There, that is the facts about me IN THIS CASE. So, yes, I am informed, but no, I can’t remember all that information because a lot of it I can’t identify with and I did not bother to use the dictionary for that many stuff.

And PS, some things I am not informed on, their's more to read.

So, you're informed but you don't understand a lot of the concepts involved and are confused by scientific terms?

You're not making much sense.

 

[painted wolf]

First off… characters and letters are slightly different. The letter is this > A. The character is the SHAPE of the letter, notice it has the shape of a roof, with a slash in the middle, line going up left and then down left and then a line crossing to attach both. That’s the character. Now this letter > B is a different letter then A and it also has a different character, or structure.

That is totally incorrect.
In terms of writing a character is... all the letters, numbers and punctuation marks. When people were/are charged per character for a newspaper ad or for a telegram they werent being charged by the shape of the letter.

Yea, and? The nucleotide is the character or the structure of DNA. You even said it yourself “FORMS the basic backbone of DNA”.

yea, in the same way that SiO4 forms the backbone of a quartz crystal. That doesn't mean that crystals are language. DNA has more in common with a rock than it does with a language.

So, your wrong AGAIN! It does have the hallmarks of language or a code of information, yes it does!
Just because A always pairs with T does not mean it doesn’t vary in its sequence going down the latter. A is not always on the same side of the latter, likewise the G is not always on the same side, and AT can go down the latter a few times in a row and likewise GC can.

So what? Honestly how does this make it anything like a language?
Name one language that follows rules anything like this.

How are the amino acids made then? Or where do they come from?

They form naturally in the environment... they are also very common in space and form very readily in interstellar clouds.

Meaning you don’t know what that particular information is for. Read the quotes above on that one.

No, we know exactly what it does... that is why we know it is redundant. :banghead3:

“TELLS IT”? it TELLS IT? So the ribosome READS IT? All of that means LANGUAGE!

Poetic language... I'll refrain from using it in the future. I'll stick to technical language as anything else seems to confuse things.
The Ribosome is unable to attach to this codon and thus it spontaneously detaches from the RNA/DNA strand.
Is that better?

Yea, and the point is? Of course changing the INFORMATION in the language would make the ribosome read a different message, and thus do a DIFFERENT job getting done in the end product being built.

You previously said that this couldn't happen. (no new information).. are you changing your opinion now?

You don’t know if it’s junk.

Yes, well hoarders will insist that their 30 years of used tissues have a value... but that doesn't mean it's true.

Unlike words? No, the ribosome just knows what parts to select to read.

Plus if it was just always about reactions or attractions like what you said above “AAA and AAG both attract the amino acid Lysine while ACU, ACC, ACA and ACG all attract Theronine” then the ribosome should always code these none coding regions with attractions, but since they don’t, it shows there is information content going on here.

This is why I think I'm wasting my time.... I already said that the Ribosome will only attach to an unbound "start" codon... junk has no "start" codon and thus the Ribosome can not and will not attach to it.
There is no information telling it not to use the segment... indeed some bits of "junk" are deactivated genes that could otherwise be useful to us... like our broken vitamin C synthesis gene.
We can not use this gene because the "start" codon is nonfunctional.
Hardly intelligent.

Why did you call it “messenger”?

POETIC LANGUAGE! :banghead3:
People like interesting names... Just because one of the HOX genes is called "Sonic Hedgehog" doesn't mean that it has anything to do with a popular Sega game, hedgehogs or being able to run really fast!

So what if they make different things? I am not following your thought here how it cannot still be language?

Sentences convey thoughts... they do not spontaneously turn into butterflies and flap away.

How does the working or being stopped from working have to do with language or sentences? Like a person building a house, well his working has nothing to do with language, but the information that tells him how to build the house, that has something to do with language.

I'm really wasting my time aren't I?
*does the asterisk at the beginning of this sentence stop you from reading it?

Two parts, but you can separate them by all means, because it’s an instruction manual.

If you were telling a story though, it would not make sense to separate them.

Ok I'm done.... You are changing the goalposts and I honestly have no patience for that.

wa:do

 

[xanaticus]

I have been presenting it the whole time on this thread. In short.

Information, complexity is evidence for creation and design. Their.

it's fine for you to have found an explanation for yorself, but so far you can't explain why complexity and information (which kind of information do you mean? define information! - same for complexity...) should be in any case evidence for creation, your claim remains one of a layman (from scientific point of view), without relevance at academic level.

and please don't try to argue anymore with "scientists who talk over people's heads", because it's your fault you don't understand them, not theirs. so long you recognize you don't like to read to much, it's obviously why you feel like they would talk over yourhead. just to remember: science isn't religion, to have the pretention from those professors to bring it on your understanding level. you have to bring a certain stock of knowledge to be able to take part at most of scientific discussions and you have to read a lot for that. otherwise you are outside of those discusions, what shouldn't hinder you in any kind to make presumptions and explain the world's complexity for youself in 2 sentences, like you did

 

[Jollybear]

ImmortalFlame

Here is what you said:

And here is what I MEANT by what I said. Read below, I’ll explain.

"And also yes, I admit I don’t understand EVERYTHING about DNA, even though I have read tons of articles and even books on the issue."

Notice I did not say I read TEXT BOOKS on DNA or biology. Did you catch that? I just read books, general statement. Only one of those books talked about it in more detail, but not as detailed as a text book would. Do you understand now? As for the articles, out of all of them, I have gotten lots of details, but there is more to read, and I can’t even remember everything I read in the articles.

Do you understand?

Don't blame me for getting the impression that you'd read books on genetics based on the fact that you claimed to have done so.

You misunderstood exactly what I was claiming. I did not read a textbook. I probably SHOULD though.

It's quite simple really. The fact that you'd claim to of read books on the issue and yet do not know or care to understand the terms associated with it in various fields - and, in fact, mock someone for having mentioned them - does not bode well for your credibility.

I read articles on the issue and one book that detailed it somewhat, and the other books spoke on it generally.

As for knowing or caring? Yes I care to know and understand the terms associated with these various fields, but sometimes I just don’t like the names and words they use, so I still want to understand it, just put it in my OWN words. That’s what I like doing, it’s MY style.

Also I did not mock, I simply asked for more details, not just words.

So, this is the HONEST truth I am telling you, my credibility is not shot, your EYES are shot.

You said you'd read books on genetics. I fail to see where I assumed anything that you hadn't already claimed.

I’m sorry that you misunderstood what I meant by read books on the issue. I should have detailed more what I meant at the beginning. ONE book I read detailed it SOMEWHAT, other books spoke on it GENERALLY. NONE of the books were textbooks. I read articles, many, too many to count, put them all together, there is probably lots of details, maybe as much as a textbook, but maybe not, probably not I am guessing.

Now do you understand?

So, in other words, you have no idea what you're talking about or what scientists are talking about?

Wrong, I have a general understanding, and that general understanding I do know what I am talking about with it. Also I understand SOME things scientists are saying and some things I DON’T understand, depending on the article and who is writing it.

Why are you even here debating this in that case? I'm just curious.

To further understand and because I firmly believe this universe is created.

So, you're informed but you don't understand a lot of the concepts involved and are confused by scientific terms?

Slightly right…I am informed on some things in a general sense. Some things I understand, some things I don’t. The things I don’t understand, it’s because of a combination of needing to read MORE and reading more stuff in laymen language.

You're not making much sense.

Well, I think I am.

 

[Jollybear]

Xanaticus

it's fine for you to have found an explanation for yorself, but so far you can't explain why complexity and information (which kind of information do you mean? define information! - same for complexity...) should be in any case evidence for creation, your claim remains one of a layman (from scientific point of view), without relevance at academic level.

Yes I have shown why and told you why complexity is evidence for design. Even though I put it in laymen terms because I am a laymen, and even if I was not a laymen, I would still put it in laymen terms. There are scientists like Stephen C meyer who could put it in technical terms if he wanted to, but that is not very helpful.

and please don't try to argue anymore with "scientists who talk over people's heads", because it's your fault you don't understand them, not theirs.

Perhaps I should read tons new words in the dictionary, but that is not something I am interested in doing, so, sue me. I am not interested in translating as I read a book or an article. There has been times I did look up the technical language scientists use but then I forgot the meaning of the word simply because I NEVER USE IT in every day speech, and nor does most others. I’m interested in every day language, laymen language. EVEN if I was an actual scientist by career, I would STILL hate there language, I would STILL speak in laymen language. Things I would understand, I would call them names that I like, who cares what others call them.

so long you recognize you don't like to read to much, it's obviously why you feel like they would talk over yourhead.

No, I like to read allot, I just don’t like reading the dictionary allot, so if I have to do that for a book I am reading, I will just STOP reading that book and throw it away in frustration. Simple as that.

just to remember: science isn't religion, to have the pretention from those professors to bring it on your understanding level.

I can’t believe you just said that. First off, science LIKE religion has politics, religion (assumptions) and seeking involved in it. They just approach it differently. If a representative of a certain religion wants people to understand their religion, they will speak to them with laymen language, likewise if a scientist wants to be understood, he will speak in laymen language. If he does not want to be understood, but still ACT like he does by writing a technical paper, he is then just wanting to LOOK smart, in other words, he would be an *******. Either that, or he don’t understand laymen language, perhaps technical language is his native tongue. In that case he is not an *******. But we seriously need a translator, and the dictionary is not the one I like. That just takes up too much time as I am reading, plus it takes away the fun and enjoyment from the actual read.

you have to bring a certain stock of knowledge to be able to take part at most of scientific discussions and you have to read a lot for that. otherwise you are outside of those discusions, what shouldn't hinder you in any kind to make presumptions and explain the world's complexity for youself in 2 sentences, like you did

I prefer to stick with simple everyday language as my knowledge. You can understand BIG things with simple everyday language.

Painted_wolf

I will respond to your post soon.

 

[xanaticus]

Yes I have shown why and told you why complexity is evidence for design

I haven't read any futher explanation, only that claim in 1 or 2 senteces. like i said, without any demonstration, your claim it's only of guessing domain.

if you like it or not, science can't always be explained in layman language, or better those who use technical language do that because it's much easier for them to express and they except from their auditory to understand that language, they take in account that the people who listen them have already that needed stock of knowledge, they even don't adress to every layman who doesn't understand them

First off, science LIKE religion has politics

your point of view. mine is different. sure science has some poitics too, but not like religion. sciece almost don't need to reach the laymen, while religion is dead if doesn't do that

 

[xanaticus]

oh, i understand why you think there is a lot of politics involved in science: you read only the articles about some issues...

but once again, this thread is called "creationists: here's your chance!" and i see on page #60 nothing but other who try to explain you some basics of genetics.
it's probably because those who blieve in creation aren't able to prove anything and their entire argument it's based only on disapproving science?

 

[Jollybear]

Xanaticus

I haven't read any futher explanation, only that claim in 1 or 2 senteces. like i said, without any demonstration, your claim it's only of guessing domain.

Here is the explanation. Complexity has many vital parts, too many to have happened by chance, therefore intelligence created the complex organisms. If you looked at a car you would say it’s complex and based on that, you know someone made the car, that it was not made by chance. Simple concept isn’t it?

if you like it or not, science can't always be explained in layman language,

Give me an example where it cannot be explained in laymen language?

or better those who use technical language do that because it's much easier for them to express and they except from their auditory to understand that language, they take in account that the people who listen them have already that needed stock of knowledge, they even don't adress to every layman who doesn't understand them

If scientists like the technical language and they are talking to another scientist who likes the technical language, may they fill their boots, but when they are talking to laymen, they should not be an idiot.

your point of view. mine is different. sure science has some poitics too, but not like religion. sciece almost don't need to reach the laymen, while religion is dead if doesn't do that

This is totally wrong. Science has to make some people naturalists in order to stick to their theme “finding ONLY naturalistic explanations for things”. If they can’t get some people to accept that, then they are dead, at least that branch of science is dead. But if religion does not reach people, that does not mean the religion is dead, the concepts of that religion is in many people’s minds, just in their own words.

Also YES science DOES need to reach the laymen. Every scientist USE to be a laymen, so they had to be reached, did they not?

Also if scientists are going to make articles and publish them for the public, why deliberately TRY NOT to reach the person who is reading their stuff? That would be quite DUM wouldn’t it?

Also scientists need to reach the laymen because without the laymen’s support through the government, scientists don’t have a job.

Also scientists need to reach the laymen because we have a right to know about our world just as any of them do. But we cannot all find it out by becoming a scientist, because if everyone was a scientist, there would be no WORLD. No garbage man, no mail man, no grocery store cashier, no banker, no trucker, no farmer, no whatever. The world would not go round, would it?

oh, i understand why you think there is a lot of politics involved in science: you read only the articles about some issues...

Some issues? I don’t know what you’re getting at here? Yea, I gauss I have not read every single issue science has brought up, and your point is?

but once again, this thread is called "creationists: here's your chance!" and i see on page #60 nothing but other who try to explain you some basics of genetics.
it's probably because those who blieve in creation aren't able to prove anything and their entire argument it's based only on disapproving science?

No, disproving certain THEORIES OF science, not SCIENCE itself. or at least showing PROBLEMS with those theories and bringing a better alternative theory.