Can anyone explain how the moth got it's owl eyes?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why don’t you address the BS that you believe is true? I’ve given you logical sensibilities and figures which you choose to ignore. No macro evolution has ever been observed, mutations cause disease, you are fantasizing against the odds

You have done nothing of the sort. You've made claims and when you've been corrected on those claims, you ignore the corrections and just repeat them.

Lactose tolerance is a mutation, which is a beneficial mutation. There's one for you.

 

[Shemjaza]

Here we go, a good atheist will always doubt that dna is a code: like you can’t look it up yourself?
“A system of words, letters, or signs used to represent a message in secret form, or a system of numbers, letters, or signals used to represent something in a shorter or more convenient form:”
Or
“coded language : a word or phrase chosen in place of another word or phrase in order to communicate an attitude or meaning without stating it explicitly”

How does that definition apply to a chemical structure?

We have a code for describing DNA, but those letters are no more a part of the DNA than the names we give to physical structures like mountains and lakes.

 

[BCP1928]

Here we go, a good atheist will always doubt that dna is a code: like you can’t look it up yourself?
“A system of words, letters, or signs used to represent a message in secret form, or a system of numbers, letters, or signals used to represent something in a shorter or more convenient form:”
Or
“coded language : a word or phrase chosen in place of another word or phrase in order to communicate an attitude or meaning without stating it explicitly”

Why the crack about atheism? The existence of God and His authorship of our being are not at issue in this forum. Some believe, some don't, but it has nothing to do with the adequacy of the theory of evolution.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

You have done nothing of the sort. You've made claims and when you've been corrected on those claims, you ignore the corrections and just repeat them.

Lactose tolerance is a mutation, which is a beneficial mutation. There's one for you.

That mutation is a LOSS of genetic information, not a gain. 99.9999% of mutations are do nothing or cause diseases

 

[Hans Blaster]

That mutation is a LOSS of genetic information, not a gain. 99.9999% of mutations are do nothing or cause diseases

A mutation is a CHANGE in genetic information, just like a spelling error.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That mutation is a LOSS of genetic information, not a gain. 99.9999% of mutations are do nothing or cause diseases

You and many others have said it's a loss but have never once shown or explained HOW it's a loss, nor even what 'genetic information' is. The ability to break down lactose when it couldn't be broken down before is a loss of 'genetic information'... how?

 

[Estrid]

How does that definition apply to a chemical structure?

We have a code for describing DNA, but those letters are no more a part of the DNA than the names we give to physical structures like mountains and lakes.

Getting sucked into the code- equivocation game is
for, you know, suckers.

 

[Estrid]

Why the crack about atheism? The existence of God and His authorship of our being are not at issue in this forum. Some believe, some don't, but it has nothing to do with the adequacy of the theory of evolution.

They just take "the name of thy Lord in vain
as if it's an auto- win with that appeal to authority.
It's a profound error, theistically and as an argumeny

 

[Ophiolite]

Here we go, a good atheist will always doubt that dna is a code: like you can’t look it up yourself?
“A system of words, letters, or signs used to represent a message in secret form, or a system of numbers, letters, or signals used to represent something in a shorter or more convenient form:”
Or
“coded language : a word or phrase chosen in place of another word or phrase in order to communicate an attitude or meaning without stating it explicitly”

Thank you. That was helpful. On the basis of these definitions I can state with 100% certainty that DNA is not a code. It contains no words, letters, or signs. It does not contain any messages, secret or overt. It is not a system of numbers, letters, or signals. Etc.

What we have here is an example of what occurs when equivocation enters the arena. It is unfortunate the phrase "genetic code" was ever introduced. It was doubtless a convenient simplification to describe the chemistry of DNA by analogy to codes, with which many people were already familiar. But just as the map is not the territory, the analogy is not the thing it is analogous to.

DNA has the chemical potential to initiate the construction of proteins. Change the precise chemistry of a DNA strand by mutation and a new protein is produced. You seem to keep saying this cannot happen, yet it has been observed and validated many times. What leads you doubt what is well established?

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

A mutation is a CHANGE in genetic information, just like a spelling error.

Nice spin and sugarcoating what are actually copying errors.
No copying errors are ever going to manufacture a living being. Also where did the info in dna originate?

 

[BCP1928]

Nice spin and sugarcoating what are actually copying errors.

Copying errors change the information.

No copying errors are ever going to manufacture a living being. Also where did the info in dna originate?

What "info?" Information Theory is a mathematical method of describing patterns in natural objects. Show us your math.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

Thank you. That was helpful. On the basis of these definitions I can state with 100% certainty that DNA is not a code. It contains no words, letters, or signs. It does not contain any messages, secret or overt. It is not a system of numbers, letters, or signals. Etc.

What we have here is an example of what occurs when equivocation enters the arena. It is unfortunate the phrase "genetic code" was ever introduced. It was doubtless a convenient simplification to describe the chemistry of DNA by analogy to codes, with which many people were already familiar. But just as the map is not the territory, the analogy is not the thing it is analogous to.

DNA has the chemical potential to initiate the construction of proteins. Change the precise chemistry of a DNA strand by mutation and a new protein is produced. You seem to keep saying this cannot happen, yet it has been observed and validated many times. What leads you doubt what is well established?

Dna DOES contain symbols/ signs : ATGC.
These are letters
These get translated during transcription.
I guess you don’t like biologists who refer to it as a code because that is what it is,
It is encoded, and gets translated, fits the definition of code perfectly.

 

[BCP1928]

Dna DOES contain symbols/ signs : ATGC.
These are letters
These get translated during transcription.
I guess you don’t like biologists who refer to it as a code because that is what it is,
It is encoded, and gets translated, fits the definition of code perfectly.

If you like, but the point is, there is nothing "encoded" in it. It's just a big molecule.

 

[Ophiolite]

Dna DOES contain symbols/ signs : ATGC.
These are letters
These get translated during transcription.
I guess you don’t like biologists who refer to it as a code because that is what it is,
It is encoded, and gets translated, fits the definition of code perfectly.

No. There are no symbols in DNA. There are no signs in DNA. There are chemical groupings that, for convenience, we have assigned letters, A for Adenine, T for Thymine, G for Guanine, and C for Cytosine. They exist as letters only the minds and writing and speech of humans. In the DNA they are chemicals.

Chemicals have the potential to react with each other and it happens that DNA, when present in a cell, engages in a variety of chemical reactions, which lead to the production of a variety of proteins. Chemistry. But since it takes place in living organisms we call it biochemistry. Plenty of letters and signs and symbols in books explaining that biochemistry. None at all in the chemistry itself.

I think it unforunate that calling the pattern present in the grouping of the four bases in DNA a code has led to confusion for some. As I said, equivocation rears its ugly head. The definitions you gave do not fit the meaning of "code" as used by biologists and biochemists. You know, the people who understand the concept because they don't just study it, many of them have contributed to that understanding.

Its ironic that you seek to deny the nature of evolution and its biochemical roots by misusing a term introduced by the very people who have demonstrated the mechanisms of evolution.

Now, perhaps you'll address my earlier point. Given that you appear to accept that transcription creates changes in messenger RNA which leads to the production of a protein, how is it that you can deny uesful protiens are generated by mutations in the DNA. There is a breakdown in you logic stream somewhere. I am curious as to where it is.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nice spin and sugarcoating what are actually copying errors.

It's not sugarcoating. It is fact. A mutation in the form of a copying error *CHANGES* information. It does not reduce information, but replaces one bit of "information" with another.

No copying errors are ever going to manufacture a living being. Also where did the info in dna originate?

That's a claim that you cannot back because you clearly do not understand natural selection and a question that is unrelated.

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

If you like, but the point is, there is nothing "encoded" in it. It's just a big molecule.

Nothing encoded? Since you’re an atheist, you feel forced to deny reality.
Even evolutionists confirm the opposite of what you’re blabbering

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

It's not sugarcoating. It is fact. A mutation in the form of a copying error *CHANGES* information. It does not reduce information, but replaces one bit of "information" with another.

That's a claim that you cannot back because you clearly do not understand natural selection and a question that is unrelated.

Wrong, random mutations are the absolute crux of what you rely on to go from molecules to man, no NS is going to save you w out them

 

[Thurston-howell-III]

No. There are no symbols in DNA. There are no signs in DNA. There are chemical groupings that, for convenience, we have assigned letters, A for Adenine, T for Thymine, G for Guanine, and C for Cytosine. They exist as letters only the minds and writing and speech of humans. In the DNA they are chemicals.

Chemicals have the potential to react with each other and it happens that DNA, when present in a cell, engages in a variety of chemical reactions, which lead to the production of a variety of proteins. Chemistry. But since it takes place in living organisms we call it biochemistry. Plenty of letters and signs and symbols in books explaining that biochemistry. None at all in the chemistry itself.

I think it unforunate that calling the pattern present in the grouping of the four bases in DNA a code has led to confusion for some. As I said, equivocation rears its ugly head. The definitions you gave do not fit the meaning of "code" as used by biologists and biochemists. You know, the people who understand the concept because they don't just study it, many of them have contributed to that understanding.

Its ironic that you seek to deny the nature of evolution and its biochemical roots by misusing a term introduced by the very people who have demonstrated the mechanisms of evolution.

Now, perhaps you'll address my earlier point. Given that you appear to accept that transcription creates changes in messenger RNA which leads to the production of a protein, how is it that you can deny uesful protiens are generated by mutations in the DNA. There is a breakdown in you logic stream somewhere. I am curious as to where it is.

So w your reasoning, the ink in a book is just a chemical reacting to the paper. Never mind the absolute defined sequencing of the letters or the nucleotides that have SPECIFIC meaning and get translated.
You are so far gone in a delusional stupor

 

[Hans Blaster]

Wrong, random mutations are the absolute crux of what you rely on to go from molecules to man, no NS is going to save you w out them

Like I said, you don't understand natural selection. If you did you wouldn't be making these ridiculous claims.

 

[Gene2memE]

Dna DOES contain symbols/ signs : ATGC.
These are letters

Those are molecules, not letters. Adenine (A), thymine (T), guanine (G), and cytosine (C).

These get translated during transcription.
I guess you don’t like biologists who refer to it as a code because that is what it is,
It is encoded, and gets translated, fits the definition of code perfectly.

Except there's no intentionality in DNA, and thus no teleology. So DNA is fundamentally different from human created codes.