Barbarian
Member
Barbarian observes:
As you learned it's a fact. They have built devices with information density much greater that of DNA
Well, let's take a look...
The researchers started with one iron atom and used the tip of scanning tunneling microscope to switch magnetic information in successive atoms. They worked their way up until eventually they succeeded in storing one bit of magnetic information reliably in 12 atoms. The tip of the scanning tunneling microscope was then used to switch the magnetic information in the bits from a zero to a one and back again, allowing researchers to store information.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223396/IBM_smashes_Moore_s_Law_cuts_bit_size_to_12_atoms
So they built a device out of 12 atoms that could store information, be written on, and erased. And as you see, much greater information density than DNA.
The actual fact is scientists produced something with much denser information storage than DNA.
In 2012, IBM scientists announced the creation of the world's smallest magnetic memory bit, made of just 12 atoms. This breakthrough could transform computing by providing the world with devices that have access to unprecedented levels of data storage.
Could transform computing. But a working device has been constructed.
Barbarian observes:
Since it wasn't about evolution, that's not surprising. Nor is it surprising that no one in the ENCODE project said that the genome was made by intelligent design, or had "specified complexity."
That's how it works. If the ICR had said they disagreed with the ENCODE scientists, that would have been honest. But they chose to say that they reported ID was confirmed, which was dishonest.
Perhaps you don't understand what "theory" means. In science, it refers to a well-tested idea or series of ideas, supported by evidence. Theory is as confirmed as it gets in science.
So nothing about specified complexity and nothing about intelligent design. This is why the ICR was so dishonest to say otherwise.
How does that justify the ICR saying the researchers said something they did not?
It's dishonest for anyone to claim a researcher said things he did not. I don't see that should be surprising to anyone.
Scientists accept those facts because the evidence supports the conclusion.
It's quite testable. For example, a fusion in human chromosome 2 was predicted based on evolutionary theory. And it was tested and confirmed.
Barbarian observes:
It's not dishonest to hold that opinion, if you actually believe it. It is egregiously dishonest to claim that the people in the ENCODE project made that claim. The ICR made a rather bad moral judgement in deciding to do so.
No, it's a very clear case of dishonesty. The ICR claimed that these scientists said things they did not. No wiggle room there.
Yes. Evolutionary theory assumes living things exist, and describes how populations of them change.
That's what the evidence shows.
We see it still happening today. For example, there was, in Tibetans, a rather rapid evolution of certain genes allowing them to live at higher altitudes.
Not so far. Can you show me something?
I doubt if you'd find one YE creationist among them. And as you learned, they didn't conclude any intelligent design at all.
Seems unlikely, seeing as they didn't report any such thing.
As you learned it's a fact. They have built devices with information density much greater that of DNA
Well, let's take a look...
The researchers started with one iron atom and used the tip of scanning tunneling microscope to switch magnetic information in successive atoms. They worked their way up until eventually they succeeded in storing one bit of magnetic information reliably in 12 atoms. The tip of the scanning tunneling microscope was then used to switch the magnetic information in the bits from a zero to a one and back again, allowing researchers to store information.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223396/IBM_smashes_Moore_s_Law_cuts_bit_size_to_12_atoms
So they built a device out of 12 atoms that could store information, be written on, and erased. And as you see, much greater information density than DNA.
The actual fact is scientists produced something with much denser information storage than DNA.
In 2012, IBM scientists announced the creation of the world's smallest magnetic memory bit, made of just 12 atoms. This breakthrough could transform computing by providing the world with devices that have access to unprecedented levels of data storage.
Could transform computing. But a working device has been constructed.
Barbarian observes:
Since it wasn't about evolution, that's not surprising. Nor is it surprising that no one in the ENCODE project said that the genome was made by intelligent design, or had "specified complexity."
That's how it works. If the ICR had said they disagreed with the ENCODE scientists, that would have been honest. But they chose to say that they reported ID was confirmed, which was dishonest.
Perhaps you don't understand what "theory" means. In science, it refers to a well-tested idea or series of ideas, supported by evidence. Theory is as confirmed as it gets in science.
So nothing about specified complexity and nothing about intelligent design. This is why the ICR was so dishonest to say otherwise.
How does that justify the ICR saying the researchers said something they did not?
It's dishonest for anyone to claim a researcher said things he did not. I don't see that should be surprising to anyone.
Scientists accept those facts because the evidence supports the conclusion.
It's quite testable. For example, a fusion in human chromosome 2 was predicted based on evolutionary theory. And it was tested and confirmed.
Barbarian observes:
It's not dishonest to hold that opinion, if you actually believe it. It is egregiously dishonest to claim that the people in the ENCODE project made that claim. The ICR made a rather bad moral judgement in deciding to do so.
No, it's a very clear case of dishonesty. The ICR claimed that these scientists said things they did not. No wiggle room there.
Yes. Evolutionary theory assumes living things exist, and describes how populations of them change.
That's what the evidence shows.
We see it still happening today. For example, there was, in Tibetans, a rather rapid evolution of certain genes allowing them to live at higher altitudes.
Not so far. Can you show me something?
I doubt if you'd find one YE creationist among them. And as you learned, they didn't conclude any intelligent design at all.
Seems unlikely, seeing as they didn't report any such thing.
