Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[Jose Fly]

Actually Stripe is discussing evidence. You are discussing beliefs.

Well, let's see. This is Stripe's post I responded to:

"The challenge remains unanswered. Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.

Where's the evidence in there? That's nothing more than an empty assertion, along the lines of "The moon is made of cheese".

Evolutionists have to believe that the ability to recode RNA arose because squids once did not have the ability to recode, but then a random change made recoding possible and conferred a selectable advantage.

The evolutionary account faces impossible odds."

Again, same thing. Just "It's impossible because I say so". So once again we see that in creationist world "Nuh uh" is considered "discussing the evidence".

There is no evidence complex sophisticated coding systems can self create....inspite of your belief system.
(I see when i quoted you though that your words self repaired)

Yes there is and I've presented it to you before. You ignored it, further demonstrating the folly of showing data to creationists.

 

[6days]

There is no evidence complex sophisticated coding systems can self create....inspite of your belief system.

Yes there is and I've presented it to you before. You ignored it, further demonstrating the folly of showing data to creationists.

I admit I ignore things that have never happened.*

A code can't self create.*

A code never has...and never will be able to create itself.*

Morse code did not invent itself.

Braille required an intelligent creator.

Green means go....and red means stop is a code that required someone to assign meaning to the colors...and someone else to understand that simple code.*

Zeros and ones inside a computer is nothing....unless someone assigns a value and creates a code.

Our alphabet is just meaningless squiggly lines with someone having invented this code.

Codes have never self created. Our DNA is the worlds most sophisticated coding system. It has overlaying layers of complexity that teams of brilliant minds are only beginning to understand.

"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Bill Gates


"The genome is an instruction manual...There is no informatiin system designed by man that can even begin to compare to the simplest genome in complexity"
Dr. Sanford, geneticist

God's Word *reveals the Codemaker to us.

 

[The Barbarian]

How can something be part of a "biblical model" if it isn't in the Bible?

It's not Biblical; it's creationism. Big difference between those two. Adaptation didn't become part of the "creationist model", until Darwinists showed that it worked.

Many creationists now admit that new species, genera, and even families of organisms evolve.

But clearly Stipe didn't read the actual paper, nor did he realize that numerous such cases of mRNA editing have been identified in other taxa. Mammals, for instance, have evolved such controls, which are easily done by Darwnian processes; such molecules can evolve by mutation and natural selection.

Here's the abstract:


The majority of transcripts in the squid nervous system are extensively recoded by A-to-I RNA editing

Shahar Alon, Sandra C Garrett, Erez Y Levanon, Sara Olson, Brenton R Graveley, Joshua J C Rosenthal, Eli Eisenberg
eLife 2015;4:e05198
RNA editing by adenosine deamination alters genetic information from the genomic blueprint. When it recodes mRNAs, it gives organisms the option to express diverse, functionally distinct, protein isoforms. All eumetazoans, from cnidarians to humans, express RNA editing enzymes. However, transcriptome-wide screens have only uncovered about 25 transcripts harboring conserved recoding RNA editing sites in mammals and several hundred recoding sites in Drosophila. These studies on few established models have led to the general assumption that recoding by RNA editing is extremely rare. Here we employ a novel bioinformatic approach with extensive validation to show that the squid Doryteuthis pealeii recodes proteins by RNA editing to an unprecedented extent. We identify 57,108 recoding sites in the nervous system, affecting the majority of the proteins studied. Recoding is tissue-dependent, and enriched in genes with neuronal and cytoskeletal functions, suggesting it plays an important role in brain physiology.

Nothing is new or surprising here, except that so much of the RNA is being edited.

And one more pratfall for Stipe.

 

[The Barbarian]

"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Bill Gates

Bill Gates doesn't know much about biology (he dropped out of college and never took any biology)

So it's probably a surprise to him that many computer programs are more complex than most DNA molecules.

 

[Jose Fly]

I admit I ignore things that have never happened.*

A code can't self create.*

A code never has...and never will be able to create itself.*

Morse code did not invent itself.

Braille required an intelligent creator.

Green means go....and red means stop is a code that required someone to assign meaning to the colors...and someone else to understand that simple code.*

Zeros and ones inside a computer is nothing....unless someone assigns a value and creates a code.

Our alphabet is just meaningless squiggly lines with someone having invented this code.

Codes have never self created. Our DNA is the worlds most sophisticated coding system. It has overlaying layers of complexity that teams of brilliant minds are only beginning to understand.

"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Bill Gates


"The genome is an instruction manual...There is no informatiin system designed by man that can even begin to compare to the simplest genome in complexity"
Dr. Sanford, geneticist

God's Word *reveals the Codemaker to us.

See what I mean? It's absolutely pointless to show you data and try and explain it. If it isn't what you believe, you just wave it away without thought. It's a reflex.

Again, it's impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yet another "magic bullet" that ricocheted and hit Stipe in the wallet pocket. I don't know whether he's really careless and doesn't read the research thoroughly, or whether he's trying to pull a fast one.

Doesn't matter, I guess.

 

[OCTOBER23]

CAN A SQUID CHANGE ITS RNA ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqA_BKFQeL0

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

How could random mutations and natural selection produce a system by which squids can recode their own RNA?

The RNA-editing system seen in the animal may have evolved from mononucleotide deaminases

Or it might have been designed.

It pays to address a challenge without assuming the truth of your belief.

A proposed explanation is not dispelled by your ability to conjecture another.

 

[Stripe]

A proposed explanation is not dispelled by your ability to conjecture another.

A proposed explanation involves an explanation — not a declaration that evolution exists.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

As far as I can tell, the question was asked and answered.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

A proposed explanation involves an explanation — not a declaration that evolution exists.

Or that design exists?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Let's not pretend that you have the scientific literacy to apprehend even the terminology of the processes involved, but knock yourself out.

 

[Lon]

How can something be part of a "biblical model" if it isn't in the Bible?

I think you are just asking for scripture support? Science models are created by men to explain what we see in the world as true.

Col 1:16 For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him.
Col 1:17 And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist.

Because we see adaptation, and understanding that Christ hold all things to consist, we'd make a speculation (model) about how we understand such things to be true. This is true of all scientists/science. Darwin happens to be the person that many scientists use. Bible literalists do not, because such would be against the way we understand the conveyance of scriptures. Infallible God, trumps fallible man, when it comes to observation and truth, about the world around us.

 

[Stripe]

I think you are just asking for scripture support? Science models are created by men to explain what we see in the world as true.

Because we see adaptation, and understanding that Christ hold all things to consist, we'd make a speculation (model) about how we understand such things to be true. This is true of all scientists/science. Darwin happens to be the person that many scientists use. Bible literalists do not, because such would be against the way we understand the conveyance of scriptures. Infallible God, trumps fallible man, when it comes to observation and truth, about the world around us.

That's how science works: You declare a worldview, propose a theory and test your ideas against the blowtorch of evidence. Creationists have no problem with a squid being able to recode its RNA, because that is consistent with their belief that all creatures are designed.

However, evolutionists do not follow the scientific method. Instead of explaining the evidence, they simply assert the truth of their idea.

 

[Dennyg1]

Because we see adaptation, and understanding that Christ hold all things to consist, we'd make a speculation (model) about how we understand such things to be true. This is true of all scientists/science. Darwin happens to be the person that many scientists use. Bible literalists do not, because such would be against the way we understand the conveyance of scriptures. Infallible God, trumps fallible man, when it comes to observation and truth, about the world around us.

History has shown that is 100% false. If the Bible and science were equivalent as sources, then all science would come from a papyrus scroll written by an unknown author with unknown credentials from 2000 years ago.

According to your theory, Homer's Theogany, which we can date accurately and correctly ascribe to said famous writer of Greek epic poetry, is the way more credible of the the three sources. Better hit up Delphi and see the Oracle, quick.

Science needs evidence you can see, measure, and test.

Door number 3 please

 

[Dennyg1]

Creationists have no problem with a squid being able to recode its RNA, because that is consistent with their belief that all creatures are designed.

That's interesting. Your source that was pro-evolution didn't either.

A problem for evolution? You sure about that? It's pretty low to carefully pick and choose words of a source to make it seem like you may be right. Lying is a sin. Smh

Here's just two of the things you 'forgot to include' Professor Stripe:
"We have demonstrated that RNA editing is a major player in genetic information processing rather than an exception to the rule," said Dr. Eisenberg. "By showing that the squid's RNA-editing dramatically reshaped its entire proteome -- the entire set of proteins expressed by a genome, cell, tissue, or organism at a certain time -- we proved that an organism's self-editing of mRNA is a critical evolutionary and adaptive force."

"The principle of adaptation -- the gradual modification of a species' structures and features -- is one of the pillars of evolution. While there exists ample evidence to support the slow, ongoing process that alters the genetic makeup of a species, scientists could only suspect that there were also organisms capable of transforming themselves ad hoc to adjust to changing conditions. (Emphasis added.)"

So the scientists were expecting to find animals like this at some point, the study doesn't discredit evolution in the slightest [It actually credits this new discovery with proving mRNA editing as crucial to evolution in the bold font above], and the study says that both evolution and adaptation (STRIPE BELIEVES IN NEITHER) are supported by "ample evidence."

Congratulations Stripe! You just disproved everything you have been saying on other related threads.

Everyone click on the link to see the unbelievable hypocrisy and lies of Stripe for yourself. Or you can go to the twin thread where he posted the article in its entirety (HERE: http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=108258) before realizing that he was proving the title of his own thread to be a lie and made this one.

I mean this is stooping to a whole new level of disgrace. You just ensured that nobody will trust a thing you say on here ever again

I am never letting you forget this thread

 

[6days]

Bill Gates doesn't know much about biology (he dropped out of college and never took any biology)

Does that mean Darwin didn't understand biology since he dropped out of medicine and took theology?

So it's probably a surprise to him that many computer programs are more complex than most DNA molecules.

Bill Gates obviously has a better grasp of biology than you do. A ship load of molecules has no meaning. Gates is talking about the DNA code.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Bill Gates doesn't know much about biology (he dropped out of college and never took any biology)

Does that mean Darwin didn't understand biology

No. Uncle Bill's failure to study biology, has nothing to do with Darwin's life-long studies in biology. His father grumped at him frequently about neglecting his studies in theology to study living things.

since he dropped out of medicine and took theology?

See above. Darwin, before he got his degree was a highly respected naturalist. And he continued to grow in knowlege and respect of his fellow scientists. If he had not discovered natural selection's role in evolution, he would still be known for clearing up the classification of cirripedes and for solving the mystery of coral atolls.

Barbarian observes:
So it's probably a surprise to Gates that many computer programs are more complex than most DNA molecules.

Bill Gates obviously has a better grasp of biology than you do. A ship load of molecules has no meaning. Gates is talking about the DNA code.

The molecule is the code. I thought you knew. There's no external magic going on. It's all chemistry.

And it's not nearly as complicated as many computer programs.

At the same time, it's DNA is unnecessarily complex. Coding is sloppy and includes redundant codes, which are unnecessary. Which is what you'd expect from an evolved system.

But not one designed by an omnipotent God.

He's a lot smarter than creationists are willing for him to be.

 

[The Barbarian]

And now, Nick's trying to protect Stipe by lobbing negative rep from his bunker. Why don't you come on out and take part in the discussion, Nick?

C'mon, it'll be fun.

 

[6days]

Bill Gates obviously has a better grasp of biology than you do. A ship load of molecules has no meaning. Gates is talking about the DNA code.

The molecule is the code. I thought you knew.

Although Bill Gates never took any advanced biology class, he understands biology and codes better than you.
"DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created."
Bill Gates

John Sanford has taken advanced biology and he also understands biology better than you.*
"The genome is an instruction manual...There is no informatiin system designed by man that can even begin to compare to the simplest genome in complexity"
Dr. Sanford, geneticist

At the same time, it's DNA is unnecessarily complex. Coding is sloppy and includes redundant codes, which are unnecessary. Which is what you'd expect from an evolved system.

If you looked at the wiring in the control box of a NASA rocket, I believe you are arrogant enough to tell the engineering dept. that it looks sloppy and redundant. You also are arrogant enough to tell God the same, even though you clearly don't understand the genome.