Do creationists accept biology?

[Audie]

Evolution is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and biology..

While offering education, educate yourself that
SCIENCE DOES NOT DO PROOF,
and it is impossible to ever prove any theory!

Capice?

 

[Suave]

Nope, it isn't proven

The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record.

 

[Suave]

While offering education, educate yourself that
SCIENCE DOES NOT DO PROOF,
and it is impossible to ever prove any theory!

Capice?

Evolution is a widely accepted fact, which must be proven to be correct in order to be accepted as fact.

 

[Audie]

Hmm. I've always taken the genetic code to be a quite literal code. The DNA chain contains a set of symbols that are transcribed into RNA chains and then translated into chains of amino acids.

As long g as you do not succumb to the
Vice of Equivocation wherein a code is by definition intelligently designed.

 

[Audie]

Evolution is a widely accepted fact, which must be proven to be correct in order to be accepted as fact.

As I said, educate yourself.
You are doing worse and worse.

While you are at it observe that
"Evolution" and " theory of evolution "
are not the same thing.

 

[Polymath257]

Hmm. I've always taken the genetic code to be a quite literal code. The DNA chain contains a set of symbols that are transcribed into RNA chains and then translated into chains of amino acids.

Except that the 'messages' are not equivalent. The 'code' is heavily dependent on binding proteins to the DNA as well as specific tRNA used in the ribosome. There are multiple feedback loops for controlling what gets transcribed and when. There is also a lot of post-transcription modification that is based on chemical affinity of other proteins.

Another bad analogy is that DNA is a set of blueprints. It is very rare that what part of a blueprint is read is determined by what is constructed. There is no piece of DNA that corresponds to 'building a leg' directly. Instead, timing of transcription, localization of transcription, sensitivity of previously transcribed materials, etc all come into play in ways that simply don't happen for blueprints or codes.

 

[Suave]

As I said, educate yourself.
You are doing worse and worse.

While you are at it observe that
"Evolution" and " theory of evolution "
are not the same thing.

Would you please agree that evolution by natural selection is a fact! Thank you!

 

[Audie]

Would you please agree that evolution by natural selection is a fact! Thank you!

Rest assured I know far more about
evolution and theory thereof, than you.

If you are still thinking ToE is proven
science, don't post to me again until
you're gotten that basic concept straightened out.

 

[Yerda]

Except that the 'messages' are not equivalent. The 'code' is heavily dependent on binding proteins to the DNA as well as specific tRNA used in the ribosome. There are multiple feedback loops for controlling what gets transcribed and when. There is also a lot of post-transcription modification that is based on chemical affinity of other proteins.

Aye there are a dazzling number of processes going on and none of it would happen without all sorts of molecules for labelling, catalysis, cleaving, binding and so on. But there is information encoded that is passed along a channel and produces an output, is there not? It even contains redundancy and error correction.

I'm not saying it's designed or points to anything mystical (other than the fact nature is cool as hell) but I'm pretty sure when geneticists say this DNA codes for that amino acid chain they mean it in a literal sense.

 

[Polymath257]

Aye there are a dazzling number of processes going on and none of it would happen without all sorts of molecules for labelling, catalysis, cleaving, binding and so on. But there is information encoded that is passed along a channel and produces an output, is there not? It even contains redundancy and error correction.

I'm not saying it's designed or points to anything mystical (other than the fact nature is cool as hell) but I'm pretty sure when geneticists say this DNA codes for that amino acid chain they mean it in a literal sense.

I think part of the issue is the exact definition of a 'code'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think part of the issue is the exact definition of a 'code'.

Like many terms it has more than one meaning. The problems arise when one takes a specific meaning of the word and tries to apply it to a case where an alternate definition is used.

 

[Audie]

Like many terms it has more than one meaning. The problems arise when one takes a specific meaning of the word and tries to apply it to a case where an alternate definition is used.

As noted, avoid the Spectre of Equivocation

 

[Subduction Zone]

As noted, avoid the Soectre of Equivocation

What!? Would you totally disarm the creationists?

 

[Audie]

What!? Would you totally disarm the creationists?

Yeah...a bit harsh.
They provide sport, ifn
batting low hangin' froot is sport

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah...a bit harsh.
They provide sport, ifn
batting low hangin' froot is sport

If you really want to go after low hanging fruit go after Flerfers.

 

[Audie]

If you really want to go after low hanging fruit go after Flerfers.

Nah, thats you still swingin away long
after I'm gone.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wish a capable creationust with a modicum
of education would show up.

I'ld like to see a married bachelor also. ;-)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hmm. I've always taken the genetic code to be a quite literal code

"literally", it is a molecule engaged in a gigantic chemical reaction.

The DNA chain contains a set of symbols that are transcribed into RNA chains and then translated into chains of amino acids.

That's our symbolic representation of it, which is a thing we do to make sense of what is happening and to gain deeper understanding of it.

In reality, it consists of a set of molecules engaged in a chemical reaction.

As Tyson once said: "life is really just an extreme expression of complex chemistry"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is a widely accepted fact, which must be proven to be correct in order to be accepted as fact.

You seem to confuse the facts of evolution with the theory of evolution.
Facts are the observations, the data.
The theory is the proposed mechanism that underpins and explains that data.

Just like how there is the fact of gravity (we fall to earth and don't shoot into space - the force of gravity is very much a factual reality). And then there is the theory thereof: what is it, where does it come from, how does it work?

The theory can actually be wrong - but the facts would remain.
If the theory turns out wrong, one would require another theory to explain the facts.

The facts of evolution indeed are things like speciation (factually occurs), common descent of species (genetic fact), etc. That species change over time is also a fact, as shown in the fossil record.

That evolution (= the changing of species over time) occurs, is a fact.
The theory of evolution, proposes a mechanism that explains how this occurs, how it works (natural selection etc).

The theory could be wrong (unlikely, but it could), yet the facts would remain. Speciation still factually happens. Species still factually share ancestors, etc.

Evolution would still occur. We'ld simply be wrong about the mechanism that underpins it. We'ld require a new theory of evolution.

 

[Yerda]

"literally", it is a molecule engaged in a gigantic chemical reaction.



That's our symbolic representation of it, which is a thing we do to make sense of what is happening and to gain deeper understanding of it.

In reality, it consists of a set of molecules engaged in a chemical reaction.

As Tyson once said: "life is really just an extreme expression of complex chemistry"

How does that change whether the genetic code is a code?