[_ Old Earth _] Evolution - Part 2

[Vaccine]

You bring up an important point. I will go out on a limb and say they are looking for the impossible, not highly improbable, but the impossible. I think the origin of non-living matter is child's play compared to origin of life. It seems science accepts the big bang and moves forward from there. They leave the origin of protons, neutrons, and electrons as a complete mystery. I think the mystery of the origin of life is just multiplied. We are talking about a machine more advanced than anything we can make, self healing to a point, self replicating for thousands of years, to name a few functions. If they ever could make life from non-living matter, faith would be obsolete. We would never die.

One thing I don't understand, do you believe in miracles? I believe God made life, just as he turned a few loaves of bread into 5000, just as he rose from the dead. These things just can't be put in a microscope and explained as we would a volcano, rain, or photosynthesis. I think the origin of life is just one of those things that can't be explained.

 

[Sparkey]

What was that movie? Pretty Woman? That one. There is an actor who in real life is a Buddhist and he's famous and all that. And an actress who I really enjoyed while watching her portrayal of Erin Brockovich. In the movie, "Pretty Woman" the actor played the part of a big-shoe, powerful businessman. He would buy and trade companies. He struggled with a lack of job satisfaction because his hands were no longer found in the production of anything. And so as the distance between the land, it's produce and his hand and work increased, so also did his sense of dissatisfaction increase.

This creation of distance and the consequent feeling of being disjointed in the movie was also combined with a secondary (sub) plot --that of the failing relationship between the lead actor (male) and his father.

What are we doing now with this Bang that is Big? Are we increasing the distance between the hand of God and His creation? We are His creation and no amount of invented or real time will separate us from His love. Shall we look upon the supposed billions of years and think, "What's a few billion years between friends?" Will Jesus delay His coming? The bible says he doesn't think it like that and that no, the "delay" (so-called) is really His unwillingness that any that God has given into His hand shall be lost.

That's the issue of time, not with a backward look at the bang that is big, but at the forward looking Biblical understanding: Time is short. These are the latter DAYS.

 

[Vaccine]

Sounds like we will have a thread coming soon exploring the big bang. I've always thought that made God so personal, that he would form a man from the dust himself and he close not far away. I can't say it bothers me if the universe is billions of years old, but maybe I'll learn something new.

 

[Sparkey]

I've always thought that made God so personal, that he would form a man from the dust himself and he close not far away.

Yes. God does desire a personal experience for us with Him. Yes, He did form from the dust and yes, He was close and not far.
Here is what He said about that:

And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

[Gen 2:7 NKJV]

"Into his nostrils" speaks of intimacy to me.

 

[Barbarian]

You bring up an important point. I will go out on a limb and say they are looking for the impossible, not highly improbable, but the impossible.

God said it happened. I'm satisfied with that. But fortunately, He gave us intelligence to go find out how.

I think the origin of non-living matter is child's play compared to origin of life.

Same laws. In fact, god says that the non-living matter produced living things.

It seems science accepts the big bang and moves forward from there. They leave the origin of protons, neutrons, and electrons as a complete mystery.

Nope. It has to do with the decoupling of the four forces as the universe cooled down, according to the physicists.

I think the mystery of the origin of life is just multiplied. We are talking about a machine more advanced than anything we can make, self healing to a point, self replicating for thousands of years, to name a few functions. If they ever could make life from non-living matter, faith would be obsolete. We would never die.

If scientists ever did build life entirely from non-living matter, would your faith be wrecked? Why would it do that?

One thing I don't understand, do you believe in miracles?

St. Augustine once remarked that people are greatly impressed by some miracles, but others that happen daily in existence don't mean anything to them.

Those "gee whiz" miracles (not the daily miracle of existence) aren't done because God has to do it that way. They are done to teach us something.

I believe God made life, just as he turned a few loaves of bread into 5000, just as he rose from the dead. These things just can't be put in a microscope and explained as we would a volcano, rain, or photosynthesis. I think the origin of life is just one of those things that can't be explained.

And what will you do, if someday, it is? Be cautious about defining God in terms of what man does not know.

 

[Vaccine]

If scientists ever did build life entirely from non-living matter, would your faith be wrecked? Why would it do that?

Well I don't think of it in terms of being wrecked. I would still have faith, but if science was able to build life from non-living matter they could make us immortal.
For the sake of argument, suppose they did figure out a way to build life. In Darwin's day it might have seemed as if building an amoeba was much simpler task than building an elephant, and if we lived in a world of analog traits that would be true. But every biological function can be broken down to digital information stored in DNA. All life starts as a single cell, it's the instructions in the DNA dictating whether to build something simple or something complex. An inch long microscopic piece of DNA isn't any harder (it's structurally like a ladder) to build than 100 foot long piece of DNA, the problem has always been building it in the first place. If they started with non-living matter and figured out how to bring it to life, they could make any life they had the whole genome for. The difference between the simplest life and most complex life on the planet is basically a longer piece of DNA (DNA also shapes the chromosomes). Endlessly cloning parts for us would be simple. That would not wreck my faith, even if it were sorf of obsolete.

But that's just for the sake of argument, life is more complex than anything in existence. They've all but given up making DNA, and are looking to RNA, GNA, and even some wishful thinking with TNA. Science can't even make a TV capable of the high definition color in a Blue Morpho butterfly, make a fuel injection system better than the Bombardier Beetle's injection system, or turn flesh into metal like the Scaly Foot gastropod, which the military is using to develop armor. The Hubble telescope even borrowed the design for imaging x-rays from a lobster eye. Polar bears are invisible to infrared imagery. The Sea Mouse's fur is made from high efficient fiber optic cables. The human brain has more processing power than any computer. If they start with living matter they can do a lot, but starting with non-living matter they have a long way to go.

“There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life” Det 32:39

St. Augustine once remarked that people are greatly impressed by some miracles, but others that happen daily in existence don't mean anything to them.

Those "gee whiz" miracles (not the daily miracle of existence) aren't done because God has to do it that way.They are done to teach us something.

Good quote, I've come to live as if everything were a miracle.

And what will you do, if someday, it is? Be cautious about defining God in terms of what man does not know.

God is infinite and can't be defined, I didn't mean to imply he could be. If they were able to explain miracles or the origin of life, it would only increase my faith.

 

[Barbarian]

Well I don't think of it in terms of being wrecked. I would still have faith, but if science was able to build life from non-living matter they could make us immortal.

No. We could live greatly prolonged lives, but accidents or homicide would eventually do us in, just by probability.

For the sake of argument, suppose they did figure out a way to build life. In Darwin's day it might have seemed as if building an amoeba was much simpler task than building an elephant, and if we lived in a world of analog traits that would be true. But every biological function can be broken down to digital information stored in DNA. All life starts as a single cell, it's the instructions in the DNA dictating whether to build something simple or something complex. An inch long microscopic piece of DNA isn't any harder (it's structurally like a ladder) to build than 100 foot long piece of DNA, the problem has always been building it in the first place. If they started with non-living matter and figured out how to bring it to life, they could make any life they had the whole genome for. The difference between the simplest life and most complex life on the planet is basically a longer piece of DNA (DNA also shapes the chromosomes). Endlessly cloning parts for us would be simple. That would not wreck my faith, even if it were sorf of obsolete.

That is already in reach. We could build things up from elements, if we chose to do it, and had the financial resources. I'm talking about building a successful organism of a species that had not previously existed.

But that's just for the sake of argument, life is more complex than anything in existence.

Galaxies seem to be more complex. But of course, a lot bigger.

They've all but given up making DNA

Not hard.

Recursion allows long DNA molecules to be composed hierarchically from smaller building blocks. But synthetic DNA building blocks have random errors within their sequence, as do the resulting molecules. Correcting these errors is necessary for the molecules to be useful. Even though the synthetic molecules are error prone, some of them are likely to have long stretches that do not contain any faults.

These stretches of faultless DNA can be identified, extracted, and reused in another round of recursive construction. Starting from longer and more accurate building blocks in this round increases the chances of producing a flawless long DNA molecule. The team, led by doctoral students Gregory Linshiz and Tuval Ben-Yehezkel under the supervision of Shapiro, found in their experiments that two rounds of recursive construction were enough to produce a flawless target DNA molecule. If need be, however, the error correction procedure could be repeated until the desired molecule is formed.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527094154.htm

Science can't even make a TV capable of the high definition color in a Blue Morpho butterfly, make a fuel injection system better than the Bombardier Beetle's injection system

A car engine would never work, if it was as sloppy as even the most advanced species of bombardier beetle. We can build injectors far more precise and reliable.

or turn flesh into metal like the Scaly Foot gastropod, which the military is using to develop armor.

Presently, Kevlar composites can absorb more kinetic energy than these organisms, which do not convert flesh to metal, BTW.

The Hubble telescope even borrowed the design for imaging x-rays from a lobster eye.

Actually, lobsters can't image x-rays. Principle of using shallow angle x-ray reflection was first used in 1965, before the lobster system was characterized.

Polar bears are invisible to infrared imagery.

Polar bears are highly absorbent in the infrared. (they have black skins, and colorless hair which does not reflect infrared well. But they aren't invisible in infrared any more than a black cat is invisible in visible light. They're just very dark in infrared.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1HyzgNuds

The Sea Mouse's fur is made from high efficient fiber optic cables.

Not bad, but not nearly precise enough to use for communications as we do now:

A DC-coupled fiber-optic current sensor with check-standard performance is discussed. The high-energy output of the fiber-optic sensor has a linearity of 0.01% from 10 to 3600 Arms. The low energy output has a linearity of 0.04% from 200 to 4500 Arms. For these outputs, the scale-factor-error temperature performances are 0.02% for the low energy output and 0.04% for the high-energy output. The temperature range used is 5 to 40°C for both the electronics and the optical sensing head. The phase error temperature performance is nearly 0.1 min in a laboratory environment. Also, a 1 ppm optical flux nulling current sensor is employed to make low uncertainty measurements on the high-energy output of the current sensor.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/logi...re.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1043491

The human brain has more processing power than any computer.

Earth’s supercomputing power surpasses human brain three times over
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/...power-surpasses-human-brain-three-times-over/

If they start with living matter they can do a lot, but starting with non-living matter they have a long way to go.

Things are moving along a little faster than you supposed. The danger of using man's limitations to prove God, is that man's limitations often change.

Barbarian observes:
St. Augustine once remarked that people are greatly impressed by some miracles, but others that happen daily in existence don't mean anything to them.

Those "gee whiz" miracles (not the daily miracle of existence) aren't done because God has to do it that way.They are done to teach us something.

Good quote, I've come to live as if everything were a miracle.

It is. But the miracle is in creating a universe in which all of this happens.

Barbarian cautions:
And what will you do, if someday, it is? Be cautious about defining God in terms of what man does not know.

God is infinite and can't be defined, I didn't mean to imply he could be.

That's the pitfall in using examples like that.

 

[Vaccine]

No. We couldlive greatly prolonged lives, but accidents or homicide wouldeventually do us in, just by probability.

That only shows making life fromnon-living matter isn't as simple as making a chemical reactionhappen.

That isalready in reach. We could build things up from elements, ifwe choose to do it, and had the financial resources. I'm talkingabout building a successful organism of a species that had notpreviously existed.

The fact that they haven't built lifeentirely from elements alone speaks volumes about spontaneousgeneration. It is not a matter of finances either, they haven't beenable to make a cell or a viable piece of DNA from non-living matteralone.

Galaxiesseem to be more complex. But of course, a lot bigger.

I don't think they are more complexthan life. As far as I know a galaxy is not self-replicating,self-repairing, or able to adapt. As far as I know a galaxyis built by natural processes only, whereas life is built frominstructions in DNA directing those natural processes.

Recursion allows long DNA molecules to be composedhierarchically from smaller building blocks. But synthetic DNAbuilding blocks have random errors within their sequence, as do theresulting molecules. Correcting these errors is necessary for themolecules to be useful. Even though the synthetic molecules are errorprone, some of them are likely to have long stretches that do notcontain any faults.

These stretches of faultless DNA can be identified, extracted,and reused in another round of recursive construction. Starting fromlonger and more accurate building blocks in this round increases thechances of producing a flawless long DNA molecule. The team, led bydoctoral students Gregory Linshiz and Tuval Ben-Yehezkel under thesupervision of Shapiro, found in their experiments that two rounds ofrecursive construction were enough to produce a flawless target DNAmolecule. If need be, however, the error correction procedure couldbe repeated until the desired molecule is formed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527094154.htm

I was referring to making DNA in origin of life experiments. DNAis so complex they've all but given up on it and are looking to RNAas the most likely candidate, or GNA and even TNA.

If you are bringing living matter into the picture,likebacteria, yeast, and a cell, then yes “they can do a lot”, likemake synthetic DNA. Curious they use “recursion”, a computerprogramming process, to debug the genetic code.

Sciencecan't even make a TV capable of the high definition color in a BlueMorpho butterfly, make a fuel injection system better than theBombardier Beetle's injection system

A car enginewould never work, if it was as sloppy as even the most advancedspecies of bombardier beetle. We can build injectors far more preciseand reliable.

or turn flesh into metal like the ScalyFoot gastropod, which the military is using to develop armor.

Presently, Kevlar composites can absorb more kineticenergy than these organisms, which do not convert flesh to metal,BTW.

The Hubble telescope evenborrowed the design for imaging x-rays from a lobster eye.

Actually, lobsters can't image x-rays. Principle ofusing shallow angle x-ray reflection was first used in 1965, beforethe lobster system was characterized.

Polar bears areinvisible to infrared imagery.

Polar bears are highlyabsorbent in the infrared. (they have black skins, and colorless hairwhich does not reflect infrared well. But they aren't invisible ininfrared any more than a black cat is invisible in visible light.They're just very dark ininfrared.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1HyzgNuds

TheSea Mouse's fur is made from high efficient fiber optic cables.

Not bad, but not nearly precise enough to use forcommunications as we do now:

A DC-coupled fiber-opticcurrent sensor with check-standard performance is discussed. Thehigh-energy output of the fiber-optic sensor has a linearity of 0.01%from 10 to 3600 Arms. The low energy output has a linearity of 0.04%from 200 to 4500 Arms. For these outputs, the scale-factor-errortemperature performances are 0.02% for the low energy output and0.04% for the high-energy output. The temperature range used is 5 to40°C for both the electronics and the optical sensing head. Thephase error temperature performance is nearly 0.1 min in a laboratoryenvironment. Also, a 1 ppm optical flux nulling current sensor isemployed to make low uncertainty measurements on the high-energyoutput of the currentsensor.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/logi...re.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1043491

Thehuman brain has more processing power than any computer.

Earth’s supercomputing power surpasses human brain threetimesover
[URL="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/20...-surpasses-human-brain-three-times-over/[/url]

“The snail's foot is very unusual in that it is armored with iron-mineral scales”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod


I hadn't been keeping up with thecomputer v human brain, nice to know they finally made a computersurpassing a human brain. Engineers finally caught up with nature. Seems this is a bit off topic. What I was pointing out was scienceisn't able to make life from non-living matter yet. They haveto “borrow” from Gods creation in one way or another to do allthat they are doing. If they eventually do make life from non-livingmatter in a lab, that only tells me life is anything but“spontaneously” generated.

 

[Vaccine]

No. We could live greatly prolonged lives, but accidents or homicide would eventually do us in, just by probability.

That only shows making life from non-living matter isn't as simple as making a chemical reaction happen.

That is already in reach. We could build things up from elements, if we choose to do it, and had the financial resources. I'm talking about building a successful organism of a species that had not previously existed.

The fact that they haven't built life entirely from elements alone speaks volumes about spontaneous generation. It's more than a matter of finances, they haven't been able to make a cell or a viable piece of DNA from non-living matter alone.

Galaxies seem to be more complex. But of course, a lot bigger.

I don't think they are more complex than life. From what I know a galaxy is not self-replicating, self-repairing, or able to adapt. As far as I know a galaxy is built by natural processes only, whereas life is built from instructions in DNA directing those natural processes.

Recursion allows long DNA molecules to be composedhierarchically from smaller building blocks. But synthetic DNAbuilding blocks have random errors within their sequence, as do theresulting molecules. Correcting these errors is necessary for themolecules to be useful. Even though the synthetic molecules are errorprone, some of them are likely to have long stretches that do notcontain any faults.

These stretches of faultless DNA can be identified, extracted,and reused in another round of recursive construction. Starting fromlonger and more accurate building blocks in this round increases thechances of producing a flawless long DNA molecule. The team, led bydoctoral students Gregory Linshiz and Tuval Ben-Yehezkel under thesupervision of Shapiro, found in their experiments that two rounds ofrecursive construction were enough to produce a flawless target DNAmolecule. If need be, however, the error correction procedure couldbe repeated until the desired molecule is formed.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080527094154.htm

I was referring to making DNA in origin of life experiments. DNA is so complex they've all but given up on it and are looking to RNA as the most likely candidate for origin of life, or GNA and even TNA.

If you are bringing living matter into the picture, like bacteria, yeast, and a cell, then yes “they can do a lotâ€, like make synthetic DNA. Curious they use “recursionâ€, a computer programming process, to debug the genetic code.

Sciencecan't even make a TV capable of the high definition color in a BlueMorpho butterfly, make a fuel injection system better than theBombardier Beetle's injection system

A car enginewould never work, if it was as sloppy as even the most advancedspecies of bombardier beetle. We can build injectors far more preciseand reliable.

or turn flesh into metal like the ScalyFoot gastropod, which the military is using to develop armor.

Presently, Kevlar composites can absorb more kineticenergy than these organisms, which do not convert flesh to metal,BTW.

The Hubble telescope evenborrowed the design for imaging x-rays from a lobster eye.

Actually, lobsters can't image x-rays. Principle ofusing shallow angle x-ray reflection was first used in 1965, beforethe lobster system was characterized.

Polar bears areinvisible to infrared imagery.

Polar bears are highlyabsorbent in the infrared. (they have black skins, and colorless hairwhich does not reflect infrared well. But they aren't invisible ininfrared any more than a black cat is invisible in visible light.They're just very dark ininfrared.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_1HyzgNuds

TheSea Mouse's fur is made from high efficient fiber optic cables.

Not bad, but not nearly precise enough to use forcommunications as we do now:

A DC-coupled fiber-opticcurrent sensor with check-standard performance is discussed. Thehigh-energy output of the fiber-optic sensor has a linearity of 0.01%from 10 to 3600 Arms. The low energy output has a linearity of 0.04%from 200 to 4500 Arms. For these outputs, the scale-factor-errortemperature performances are 0.02% for the low energy output and0.04% for the high-energy output. The temperature range used is 5 to40°C for both the electronics and the optical sensing head. Thephase error temperature performance is nearly 0.1 min in a laboratoryenvironment. Also, a 1 ppm optical flux nulling current sensor isemployed to make low uncertainty measurements on the high-energyoutput of the currentsensor.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/logi...re.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1043491

Thehuman brain has more processing power than any computer.

Earth’s supercomputing power surpasses human brain threetimesover
[URL="http://www.rawstory.com/rs/20...-surpasses-human-brain-three-times-over/[/url]

“The snail's foot is very unusual in that it is armored with iron-mineral scalesâ€
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaly-foot_gastropod


I hadn't been keeping up with the computer v human brain, nice to know they finally made a computer surpassing a human brain. Seems that is a bit off topic. What I was pointing out was science isn't able to make life from non-living matter yet. They have to “borrow†from Gods creation in one way or another to do all that they are doing. If they eventually do make life from non-living matter in a lab, that only tells me life is anything but “spontaneously†generated.

 

[Vaccine]

Nope. Just a cipher. It lacks the power and flexibility of a language.

For what it's worth I came across an article where the company wrote their name, the employees names, and some poetry into the DNA they put in a living cell.

Venter wrote his name into the DNA sequences he created too.

 

[Barbarian]

For what it's worth I came across an article where the company wrote their name, the employees names, and some poetry into the DNA they put in a living cell.

That's what ciphers are for. You can code almost anything into almost anything, if you want to set the cipher properly.

 

[Asyncritus]

A cipher is something that simply does not occur naturally, does not originate itself: and herein lies another of those things in the biological world which gives the theory of evolution the coup de grace.

A wishes to communicate information to B in secret.

So he devises a code to convey that message.

The process from then on has met and requires many steps, each dependent on the previous one, and according to people like Jaques Monod, Nobelist, there is an enormous conundrum, which will never be solved.

First, the code has to be invented.

The Morse code, for example was invented by Samuel Morse, and consists of a series of dots and dashes. Dots and dashes were used because they could be handled by the telegraphic equipment of the day.

The genetic code is a genuine code, every scientist calls it a code: because that is what it is.

It was invented by God, using the materials He has created for the purpose: the bases adenine, thymine , guanine, and cytosine. Those are the equivalents of the dots and dashes.

The coded message contains no chance elements, which would only result in confusion and error.

A group of dots ... equals S --- equals O.

Similarly, a defined group of bases codes for a given amino-acid.

The message has a meaning: a very definite meaning.

It has to be translated into the language of the receiver.

It must then be implemented eg post the book A to Mr XYZ at address B.

This is an extremely simplified version of things, but it is enough to show that a functioning code is the product of intelligence, not of chance ie evolution.

But here's the really nasty bit for evolution and abiogenesis:

In order to manufacture the proteins needed for life, the code (the instructions) has to be translated.

But the information for the manufacture of the translators themselves is in the coded message!

So without the translators, the code is useless.

But the translators cannot be made without the code!

It is a truly vicious circle, and the evolutionist has no hope of ever cracking into that one. Here's Jaques Monod on the subject:

But the major problem is the origin of the genetic code and of its translation mechanism. Indeed, instead of a problem it ought rather to be called a riddle.

The code is meaningless unless translated.

The modern cell's translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA:

the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation.

It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed?

It is exceedingly difficult to imagine."



(Monod, Jaques [Biochemist, Director of Pasteur Institute, Paris], "Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology", [1971], Penguin: London, 1997, reprint, p.143. Emphasis in original).

 

[Asyncritus]

Here's David Berlinski:[FONT=&quot]

However it may operate in life, randomness in language is the enemy of order, a way of annihilating meaning And not only in language, but in any language-like system -- computer programs, for example.

The alien influence of randomness in such systems was first noted by the distinguished French mathematician M.P. Schutzenberger, who also marked the significance of this circumstance for evolutionary theory. "If we try to simulate such a situation," he wrote, "by making changes randomly . . . on computer programs, we find that we have no chance . . . even to see what the modified program would compute; it just jams.(3)

[/FONT] [(3) Schutzenberger's comments were made at a symposium held in 1966. The proceedings were edited by Paul S. Moorhead and Martin Kaplan and published as Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Wistar Institute Press,1967). Schutzenberger's remarks, together with those of the physicist Murray Eden at the same symposium, constituted the first significant criticism of evolutionary doctrine in recent decades.]

 

[Adam]

A wishes to communicate information to B in secret.

Gotta stop you right there.


Before we can even begin to entertain to other claims that follow this assumption, you need to give a valid argument that this is at all relevant to the genetic code.


Here's a timesaver: It's not, so the claims that follow from this assumption can all be dismissed.

 

[Vaccine]

I have recently found some information relevant to the genetic code. Comparing DNA to computer code is apples to apples, btw.

Dr. Perez recently discovered DNA has highly mathematical ratios based on Phi (1.618). Dr. Perez also discovered DNA is fractal, meaning this ratio is repeated at higher levels which form a dragon curve. I cannot underscore this discovery enough. Think of it this way, if DNA were poetry, the pattern of poetry would not only be found in every line, but found in every stanza, in every paragraph, and in every page.
What this means is the known error protection for codons, also exists for genes and the entire genome! The entire genome has a fingerprint checksum! In computer science a checksum algorithm is calculated from the data and used to verify it's integrity after any transfers. A fingerprint checksum is an advanced checksum which is can be used verify data and restore any lost data.
For example, if we were to tear a page out of a book a fingerprint checksum would be able to recover the lost page just by examining sentences and paragraphs from other pages. DNA does this by calculating the checksum in reverse.

Jumping genes are old, that they are error protection for an entire organisms genome is new.
Any variation of this fingerprint checksum by .1% would result in a genetic instability and self sterilization.


What this means is mutations and errors are no longer a viable option for evolution.


ENCODE recently discovered 80% of the genome is reliably transcribed by being bound to a protein chain, or has its chromatin specifically modified. No more random mutations, it is specifically modified because of this checksum. It also means no junk DNA. That 98.5% shared DNA with chimps is no longer valid. That comparison left out all the junk DNA and only looked and 3% of the entire genome. Now we have to compare 83% of the genome, which makes that figure drop. The gap between humans and chimps is just got bigger AND can't have a step more than .1%.


It is interesting how genetic scientists observe a strict set of controls which do not allow for more than a .1% variation and assume some sort gradual evolution. On the other hand paleontologists gave up on gradualism since they observe most species don't change and are expecting some Frankenstein type evolution with huge leaps, which can't happen. These two worlds are colliding and the way it looks macro-evolution will be the loser. What makes the most sense life started from the biblical types, humans being a separate type, and the degradation of the DNA of these types accounts for the millions of life species we see.


DNA is more complicated than anyone ever imagined.............

 

[Sparkey]

The genetic code is a genuine code, every scientist calls it a code: because that is what it is.

Re: Evolution - Part 2
Originally Posted by Asyncritus
A wishes to communicate information to B in secret.

Gotta stop you right there.


Before we can even begin to entertain to other claims that follow this assumption, you need to give a valid argument that this is at all relevant to the genetic code.


Here's a timesaver: It's not, so the claims that follow from this assumption can all be dismissed.

[emphasis mine (Sparrow)]

The genetic code is a genuine code, every scientist calls it a code: because that is what it is.

Would it not be of use to give preference to engaging the base of the argument rather than dismissing it because of the inference? The original message implies that there is a "sender" called "A" and a receiver, called "B". That implication does not automatically disqualify DNA as a proper code.

The base question that I see arise stems from the attempt to understand where the ability to form code comes from; what purely natural cause is there?

 

[Barbarian]

Technically, it's a cipher, not a code. I have a master in systems, and our discipline, which was formerly called "operations research", was developed largely in military applications, including code breaking and breaking ciphers.

There were (and are) many ways to conceal writing. There are actually two separate methods generally used for messages: codes, which use symbols or groups of letters to represent words or phrases, and ciphers, where one letter is replaced with another by a either simple or a complex scheme. To those who aren't cryptologists, both codes and ciphers are usually referred to as codes.
http://www.otr.com/ciphers.shtml

In DNA the cipher is in triplets of bases, each replacing one amino acid in the string. Messenger RNA then carries the cipher out into the cell, where a ribosome and tRNA then decipher the string and produce the actual message, in amino acids.

We informally refer to both codes and ciphers as "codes", but there is a difference.

 

[Milk-Drops]

I have recently found some information relevant to the genetic code. Comparing DNA to computer code is apples to apples, btw.

No its note. DNA is the combination of protiens and amino acid. Computer code ( depending on the language) is a predetermined set of instructions that is insertied into already existing hardware and is limited to the ability of the hardware. DNA is the instruction for cellular growth and development.

Dr. Perez recently discovered DNA has highly mathematical ratios based on Phi (1.618). Dr. Perez also discovered DNA is fractal, meaning this ratio is repeated at higher levels which form a dragon curve. I cannot underscore this discovery enough. Think of it this way, if DNA were poetry, the pattern of poetry would not only be found in every line, but found in every stanza, in every paragraph, and in every page.
What this means is the known error protection for codons, also exists for genes and the entire genome! The entire genome has a fingerprint checksum! In computer science a checksum algorithm is calculated from the data and used to verify it's integrity after any transfers. A fingerprint checksum is an advanced checksum which is can be used verify data and restore any lost data.
For example, if we were to tear a page out of a book a fingerprint checksum would be able to recover the lost page just by examining sentences and paragraphs from other pages. DNA does this by calculating the checksum in reverse.

It took me some time to find the man's research, but what I did find is that he isn't saying DNA has a checksum. He is saying that DNA has something similar to a checksum. This isn't really that odd, considering that when cell duplication happens, the cell is verifying that everything is copying correctly.

Jumping genes are old, that they are error protection for an entire organisms genome is new.
Any variation of this fingerprint checksum by .1% would result in a genetic instability and self sterilization.

Better tell all those people with blue and hazel eyes they are sterile then.

What this means is mutations and errors are no longer a viable option for evolution.

Except where they are because of the thousands of papers that repeatedly show that this is the case study after study. Finding a random article on the internet doesn't make all these papers go away.
By the way, Perez's findings hasn't destroyed evolution. Many evolutionary biologists cite his work. Do your homework.

ENCODE recently discovered 80% of the genome is reliably transcribed by being bound to a protein chain, or has its chromatin specifically modified. No more random mutations, it is specifically modified because of this checksum.

No, I've seen mutations arise while doing my lab work. You don't understand Perez's reserach.

It also means no junk DNA.

Nope, still there.

That 98.5% shared DNA with chimps is no longer valid. That comparison left out all the junk DNA and only looked and 3% of the entire genome.

Provide a source please.

Now we have to compare 83% of the genome, which makes that figure drop. The gap between humans and chimps is just got bigger AND can't have a step more than .1%.

Now you really don't understand genetics. First Humans and Chimps didn't diverge in one generation. Chimps are the closest living relatives to humans genetically. However the split off happened quite awhile ago. Not to mention Chimps also continued to evolve themselves. Also, I don't think you undertand how vast that .1% is when we take into account how many proteins are in DNA. There are thousands of genes in the genome. Most of them are neutral. Which means they don't seem to have any real purpose so geneticists call it junk.

It is interesting how genetic scientists observe a strict set of controls which do not allow for more than a .1% variation and assume some sort gradual evolution.

Considering you showed that you are missing a lot of basic information when it comes to genetics and DNA, I understand why you don't understand.

On the other hand paleontologists gave up on gradualism since they observe most species don't change and are expecting some Frankenstein type evolution with huge leaps, which can't happen.

Of course you don't provide a source and you set up a straw man argument. You didn't show anything here.

These two worlds are colliding and the way it looks macro-evolution will be the loser.

Thankfully real scientists actually have to go through peer review and actually have to demonstrate their work.

What makes the most sense life started from the biblical types

The Bible doesn't list types, All genesis says is that life was created. That's it. No explanation outside of it just happened when God commanded it.

humans being a separate type,

You have provided zero evidence for this claim. You are just asserting it.

and the degradation of the DNA of these types accounts for the millions of life species we see.

Then you should have no problem show us what perfect DNA is.

DNA is more complicated than anyone ever imagined.............

No, you just haven't bothered to do enough research.

 

[Barbarian]

The base question that I see arise stems from the attempt to understand where the ability to form code comes from; what purely natural cause is there?

So far, nothing in the formation of new information in DNA has been observed that is not consistent with natural laws. If you think it likely that God just made the first organisms by supernatural means, that's perfectly O.K. with evolutionary theory; Darwin had the same idea. However, such an idea is dismissed in Genesis, which says that the Earth brought forth life.

 

[Vaccine]

No its note. DNA is the combination of protiens and amino acid. Computer code ( depending on the language) is a predetermined set of instructions that is insertied into already existing hardware and is limited to the ability of the hardware. DNA is the instruction for cellular growth and development.

The genetic code is precisely an artificial language.


programming language is an artificial language designed to communicate instructions to a machine, particularly a computer. Programming languages can be used to create programs that control the behavior of a machine and/or to express algorithms precisely.




DNA is a set of instructions communicated to RNA. RNA is a machine in that it consists of one or more parts and uses energy to achieve a particular goal. DNA has a syntax governing, communicated instructions, has start bits and stop bits, commented out code, mapping, error protection, express algorithms.

It took me some time to find the man's research, but what I did find is that he isn't saying DNA has a checksum. He is saying that DNA has something similar to a checksum. This isn't really that odd, considering that when cell duplication happens, the cell is verifying that everything is copying correctly.

I don't think I understand how something can be “similar” to a checksum, can you elaborate on that? And cite your source, here is mine:
“So the Universal Genetic Code Table not only maps codons to amino acids, but serves as a global checksum matrix”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12539-010-0022-0#


True, verifying everything copied correctly is not new, but that was just on a micro scale. What is new is that Dr. Perez discovered this happens on a macro scale, the entire genome is fractal. This backs up the findings by ENCODE that 80% is reliably transcribed. My conclusion is a fingerprint checksum eliminates macro-evolution. It means there are boundaries in every species that cant be crossed. Any changes in one part of the genetic code would force an equal but opposite change in another part in order to maintain this check-sum. There is a limit to the amount of changes that can be made and still maintain its fingerprint check-sum. I believe pushing beyond those limits of a fingerprint check-sum is counter intuitive.

Except where they are because of the thousands of papers that repeatedly show that this is the case study after study. Finding a random article on the internet doesn't make all these papers go away.

ENCODE is not a random internet article. With ENCODE finding in 2012 80% of the genome is reliably transcribed, and in 2010 Dr. Perez finding in most of his information from supposed junk DNA, it might be time to update some of those papers on junk DNA.

By the way, Perez's findings hasn't destroyed evolution. Many evolutionary biologists cite his work. Do your homework.

If you can't keep the sarcasm in check, I will ask a moderator to.

No, I've seen mutations arise while doing my lab work. You don't understand Perez's reserach

More sarcasm. I was quoting ENCODE, which recently discovered 80% of the genome is reliably transcribed by being bound to a protein chain, or has its chromatin specifically modified. This doesn't mean mutations don't happen, it means they aren't random.

Now you really don't understand genetics. First Humans and Chimps didn't diverge in one generation. Chimps are the closest living relatives to humans genetically. However the split off happened quite awhile ago. Not to mention Chimps also continued to evolve themselves. Also, I don't think you undertand how vast that .1% is when we take into account how many proteins are in DNA. There are thousands of genes in the genome. Most of them are neutral. Which means they don't seem to have any real purpose so geneticists call it junk.

Even more sarcasm. Most of what you are saying is a conclusion, I prefer to draw my own conclusions. I got that 0.1% variation from Dr. Perez work. His mathematical matrix based on Phi shows mutations are controlled to within 0.1%. Which fits with the recent discovery by ENCODE that 80% of the genome is reliably transcribed. It doesn't mean mutations don't happen, it means they are not random.

The Bible doesn't list types, All genesis says is that life was created. That's it. No explanation outside of it just happened when God commanded it.

DNA is comprised of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and nitrogen. It specifically says God formed man from the dust which has those elements. No mention of chimpanzees involved.

Then you should have no problem show us what perfect DNA is.

You got me there, I can't provide a sample of Adams DNA. Just a conclusion on my part.

DNA is more complicated than anyone ever imagined.............

No, you just haven't bothered to do enough research.

Give me just 1 example of something more complicated than DNA.