Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[Jose Fly]

And I'm still waiting for any creationist to tell us what they mean by "information" in terms of genetics. How are you defining and measuring it? Nucleotide bases? Functional sequences? Whole genes? Something else?

 

[Mocking You]

Still waiting for you to explain how "each animal was designed" follows from "squid can recode RNA"

Put me down as well.

 

[Ktoyou]

RNA misapplications also happens in humans, does not make one a squidstick

 

[Stripe]

Now you are confusing correlation with causation with an appeal to omniscience.

I don't think even you know what you are talking about any more. :idunno:

 

[Stripe]

RNA misapplications also happens in humans, does not make one a squidstick

To be fair, we are talking about RNA recoding that is done for a purpose.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Where we find meaning conveyed through writing — in every example — we automatically assume an author without ever thinking about it.

Based on prior experience. We know men write. We have seen men write before. We can ourselves write. Based on prior experience we know that writing comes from men, the same with clocks, or watches, or paintings, or whatever other analogy you wish to proffer.

These are based on prior experience. The argument is predicated on a false premise. We do not know intuitively whether something is intelligently designed. We only know this if we can see them being designed thus the analogy always relies on something that we already know is designed. We have not seen life being designed. We have no prior experience to rely on. Nor is there any objectively discernible characteristic that tells us if something is designed.

People used to think the Giant's Causeway in Northern Ireland was something that was built, but they were wrong. The Giant's causeway is a natural feature.

 

[Mocking You]

To be fair, we are talking about RNA recoding that is done for a purpose.

<Reagan voice>: "There you go again...."

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

The watchmaker argument reminds me of age old pagan superstitions. Thunder? Must be the result of a thunder maker. Someone must be making a racket up in the clouds, must be a thunder god. To them, they did not understand the natural processes involved in thunder, it was a mystery that could not be explained except as a thunder god conjuring it up.

 

[Jose Fly]

Put me down as well.

Don't hold your breath. Stripe isn't exactly famous for his question-answering abilities.

 

[jeffblue101]

I will read your source and respond later. In the meantime I'd like you to take a look at the Views on Science, criticism, and controversies sections of this:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

Once again AIG is maybe the most biased source that exists and I'll illustrate how the author [credentials?] makes simple mistakes about evolution and especially how mutations influence natural selection.

For a quick example of AIG using incorrect information: in the Moral and social issues section it mentions how AIG vehemently believes that Josef Stalin was heavily influenced by The Origin of Species, but one of the leading historians on Russian history says that this claim fails on "several obvious accounts."

It's imperative when talking science in a serious manner to use credible sources only, or you can use a questionable one if credible sources cited. An opinion means nothing. And even if a handful of credible studies did favor YEC, it means nothing until they can be retested again and again with the same results. The scientific method demands strict adherence if any conclusions are to be definitively drawn.

after reading up on the subject, I found the wiki editors are lying or merely copying and pasting from other deceptive sources. for clarity, here is a timeline of Stalin's education so you can understand how this wiki editor distorts the truth.
Gori Church School (1889-1894) age at the time 11 to 15
Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary (1894–1899) age at the time 16 to 21
for reference here is the full statement by wiki

AiG also claim Joseph Stalin's reading of Darwin influenced his brutal leadership of the Soviet Union.[76] However, according to Robert Conquest, there is a consensus among historians that the later Soviet claim that Stalin read On the Origin of Species (1859) is not true as the story fails on "several obvious" accounts.[77]

Now here is the direct quote from the YEC source.
http://creation.com/what-happened-when-joseph-stalin-read-charles-darwin

But early in his life Stalin experienced a dramatic change of career. While studying at the Tiflis Theological Seminary, he began to read the works of Charles Darwin.....Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ ideas thus powerfully shaped Stalin’s approach to society. Oppression, self glorification, atheism and murder resulted from Stalin’s rejection of his Creator after reading and believing the evolutionary ideas of Darwin. And the most tragic aspect of all? That while Stalin was turning his back on his Creator, he was building his philosophy on a lie.

now the quote from Robert Conquest's book "Stalin: breaker of Nations" (the leading historian that was mentioned above)

though we need not believe one later Soviet claim that he read The Origin of Species at the age of thirteen while still at Gori, and told a fellow pupil that it proved the nonexistence of God. The story fails on several obvious accounts, including Stalin's remaining religious, even pious, for some years longer.

So right off the bat it's clear that this historian is refuting a narrow claim about Stalin's youth promoted by soviets and not making some broad statement that Stalin never read nor was influenced by Darwin's ideas. Secondly, the referenced refutation date is off by at least 3 years since what was mentioned in the YEC article was about his time in seminary school and not his time Gori. Lastly, Stalin did indeed read Darwin's works at his time at seminary. from the same source as above

other books more generally reported as in circulation among the students indicated that he indeed now read Darwin's Descent man, and also Charles Lyell's antiquity of man, the two books which revolutionized the world's view of the human situation in life and time

Now onto the "soviet claim" that this historian disputes, this comes from a biography published in Stalin's "Glory" years titled "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin"
http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/

At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist.
G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's, relates:
"I began to speak of God, Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said:
"'You know, they are fooling us, there is no God. . . .'
"I was astonished at these words, I had never heard anything like it before.
"'How can you say such things, Soso?' I exclaimed.
"'I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense,' Joseph said.
"'What book is that?' I enquired.
"'Darwin. You must read it,' Joseph impressed on me"

So in the mind of the soviets who created this false testimony, Darwin's works have a strong connection towards enlightenment towards Atheism and Marxism. So, in essence this allegedly false testimony only enhances the case that evolution was a fundamental building block of the atheistic soviet/marxist worldview.


conclusion: Never take wiki at face value and why are evolutionists so desperate that they would have to resort to quote mining to attack YEC?

 

[Ktoyou]

To be fair, we are talking about RNA recoding that is done for a purpose.

RNA being the reactive of DNA cannot seek anything; it is always random.

There is no intelligent design, which is a priori in itself. All genetics are the creation of God.

 

[6days]

Put me down as well.

Jose has been provided with definitions before.*

You can read books on the topic trying to define it so its difficult in a sentence....But how about* information is smbollically encoded instructions that expect a specific response...or that will carry out a specifc task. The information is represented by symbols or grammar having meaning. The symbols or grammar also expect some type of action or results.
(My rendition of part of Gitts definition)

 

[6days]

after reading up on the subject, I found the wiki editors are lying or merely copying and pasting from other deceptive sources. for clarity, here is a timeline of Stalin's education so you can understand how this wiki editor distorts the truth.
Gori Church School (1889-1894) age at the time 11 to 15
Tbilisi Spiritual Seminary (1894–1899) age at the time 16 to 21
for reference here is the full statement by wiki


Now here is the direct quote from the YEC source.
http://creation.com/what-happened-when-joseph-stalin-read-charles-darwin
now the quote from Robert Conquest's book "Stalin: breaker of Nations" (the leading historian that was mentioned above)

So right off the bat it's clear that this historian is refuting a narrow claim about Stalin's youth promoted by soviets and not making some broad statement that Stalin never read nor was influenced by Darwin's ideas. Secondly, the referenced refutation date is off by at least 3 years since what was mentioned in the YEC article was about his time in seminary school and not his time Gori. Lastly, Stalin did indeed read Darwin's works at his time at seminary. from the same source as above

Now onto the "soviet claim" that this historian disputes, this comes from a biography published in Stalin's "Glory" years titled "Landmarks in the Life of Stalin"
http://www.icr.org/article/stalins-brutal-faith/

So in the mind of the soviets who created this false testimony, Darwin's works have a strong connection towards enlightenment towards Atheism and Marxism. So, in essence this allegedly false testimony only enhances the case that evolution was a fundamental building block of the atheistic soviet/marxist worldview.


conclusion: Never take wiki at face value and why are evolutionists so desperate that they would have to resort to quote mining to attack YEC?

Good research Mr Blue

 

[jeffblue101]

Well jeffblue, perhaps you can be the one creationist at ToL who can tell us what "information" means in terms of genetics, and how you measure it. Is it just nucleotide bases? Functional sequences? Whole genes?

Help a brother out.

Sure, Warren weaver already explains why there is no or will unlikely to be a official "semantic information theory" that calculates or measures meaning
http://academic.evergreen.edu/a/arunc/compmusic/weaver/weaver.html

Before closing this section on information, it should be noted that the real reason that Level A( how accurately can the symbols of communication be transmitted) analysis deals with a concept of information which characterizes the whole statistical nature of the information source, and is not concerned with the individual messages (and not at all directly concerned with the meaning of the individual messages) is that from the point of view of engineering, a communication system must face the problem of handling any message that the source can produce. If it is not possible or practicable to design a system which can handle everything perfectly, then the system should be designed to handle well the jobs it is most likely to be asked to do, and should resign itself to be less efficient for the rare task. This sort of consideration leads at once to the necessity of characterizing the statistical nature of the whole ensemble of messages which a given kind of source can and will produce. And information, as used in communication theory, does just this.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

So evolutionism and creationism both evolved at about the same time?

Creationists had a long history of belief in the 'fixity' or immutability of species, as even Answers in Genesis begrudgingly acknowledges. This didn't really begin to change until the 19th century.

 

[Jose Fly]

Jose has been provided with definitions before.*

And there we have it....the standard creationist tactic of ignoring questions, waiting a while, then lying by saying you've already answered.

It is impossible to advocate creationism honestly.

information is smbollically encoded instructions that expect a specific response...or that will carry out a specifc task. The information is represented by symbols or grammar having meaning. The symbols or grammar also expect some type of action or results.
(My rendition of part of Gitts definition)

How does that apply to genetics? If I have two genomes, how do I tell which has more "information"?

 

[Jose Fly]

Sure, Warren weaver already explains why there is no or will unlikely to be a official "semantic information theory" that calculates or measures meaning
http://academic.evergreen.edu/a/arunc/compmusic/weaver/weaver.html

So then "information" is a meaningless terms when it comes to genetics. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[jeffblue101]

So then "information" is a meaningless terms when it comes to genetics. Thanks for clearing that up.

??? what now you're denying that DNA doesn't contain encoded information for the development of proteins.

 

[Jose Fly]

??? what now you're denying that DNA doesn't contain encoded information for the development of proteins.

No, I'm saying that when you creationists make claims about "genetic information", you have no idea what you're talking about, as evidenced by your total inability to say what "genetic information" even is, or how we should be measuring it.

Until you give a specific, useful definition for "genetic information", all your arguments centering on it are obviously meaningless.

 

[Alate_One]

Evidence, remember?

Did you respond coherently to any of the evidence I posted? No.

We have an organism that recodes its RNA. The challenge you face is to provide evidence that this ability arose by random mutations and natural selection.

Again, why shouldn't it? We have evidence mutation and selection allowed for placental mammal pregnancy along with a variety of other new features. Recoding RNA is just a way of responding to the environment. Other organisms do the same thing in different ways (gene expression, exon shuffling, post translational modification, etc.). It's called phenotypic plasticity. Basically every organism has it, but it's accomplished in different ways. This paper was news because this type of recoding is only really common in squid.

Why would the creator, going from scratch, give this ability only to squid? If it's so cool, why don't humans do it?

However, given that it is nigh on impossible that any evidence might remain, we will accept a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately for your side, though, explanations aren't evidence, which leaves our side in the advantage, as there is extant evidence on the side of design.

You're still arguing "I don't know, therefore God" that was Newton's explanation of large scale gravity. It wasn't a satisfactory explanation then and it isn't now.