The Law of Biogenesis

[Isaiah 6:8]

Actually I'm not. The code is digitial and has no physical component to it. You are mixing up the matrix that carries the code (CD, memory stick, hard drive). That is the difference. The DNA is the code, but its physical form also influences how the code functions.

Actually he added computer code to the DNA that extrapolated out to phases. So DNA has been used to carry Computer data as I said, but again, why am I arguing about the illustration, Venter used, it I used it. Its not perfect, its an Illustration.

Again if you don't like what the illustration says attack the illustration. The illustration explains the facts, but is not the facts.

No actually I keep leaving out the details and framing terminology in layman's terms. Guilty as charged, but when I explain in correct scientific detail, and/or provide a reference, I get dinged for being a technical smarty pants. If I had explained how methylation works (the technique that was used), would that have suited you? In fact, it was recently implied that I use technical terminology in an attempt make me look smart and trap lay folks into looking like idiots, so I'm kind of stuck no matter what I use to explain science.

No, you lied. Leaving out details is not explaining how he used the yeast cell to produce the DNA strand, or how the machine got it wrong to much. Stating....

It was DNA. Except for viruses, RNA generally does not exist as long molecules, and it wasn't injected into a living organism, it was injected into an empty membrane.

Was an out right lie. He injected the DNA into a living Bacteria. You said it was not living because if you said it was alive, it would destroy your claim.

[Isaiah 6:8]

This was simply untrue. It was a full living bacteria, that he injected.

How do you define life?

An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.

http://www.biology-o...ionary/Organism

Viruses function precisely by injecting DNA into a cell, which takes over the cellular machinery to produce more viruses. Sounds pretty much like what Venter did, with the exception that Venter's DNA, which he assembled de novo from inanimate chemicals, in a specific sequence, destroys the resident genome. So he created life (a living organism) according to your definition, no?

I saw this one coming. Yes Virus replicate by injecting Genetic material. However, the cell they attack does not change into a virus. It changes into a factory for viruses and is eventually destroyed.

What Venter did, was completely reprogram a bacteria to behave differently.

He did not create life.

[LuftWaffle]

I'm doing well, if a bit busy, thank you. How are you doing these days?

Good to hear you're doing well. I'm okay too.

I suppose Venter intelligently designed the organism in a sense, but then again the experiment was more about genetic engineering than abiogenesis I think. My comment wasn't on Venter's work per se, but the field of abiogenesis all-together. I'm reminded of the standard processes to create basic cell membranes (a phospholipid bilayer) from dehydrated phospholipids dumped in an aqueous solution. A far cry from creating life no doubt, but was that membrane made because scientists recreated a natural process or because they intelligently designed it beyond what nature could achieve?

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean in the above statement. I don't believe that intelligent design necessarily requires a certain level of optimal-ness (or lack thereof).

Yes, I would consider forensic science an origins science. I'm not sure I follow with the deduction/induction stuff; deduction is used all the time to formulate hypotheses in operational sciences as well.

Sorry, I made a typo in my post, which completely confused the point. What I meant to say was that it seems to me operational sciences rely more on induction than deduction, and origins sciences appear to rely more on deduction than induction.

What are the different starting premises of YEC and Evolution within a scientific framework?

Evolution excludes origin by an intelligent agent, YEC doesn't.

You may say invoking an agent is unscientific, but yet forensic science, is precisely about determing whether an agent is responsibible for a certain scenario and attempting to identify the agent.

The examples I gave were equations that didn't wane profits, but I'm not sure there is any data to look at for operational vs. origins equations and public palatability, essentially all equations scare people off! I myself understand it, in high school I decided to read a modern cosmology book for lay people. I always viewed myself as excellent with math (B+ A student in math, just finished an honors course in advanced algebra and started pre-calc when I picked up the book), but when the author started throwing in equations with symbols I've never seen before I was confused and didn't really get what I was reading. I don't think I even finished the book come to think of it. Anyways....

Wow, impressive and congrats on finishing your honours course.

Sure, equations scare people off, but as I said, I don't believe the science behind evolution is any more difficult to understand than most operational sciences. I watched a show the other day about J. Robert Oppenheimer, and the first atomic bomb. It explained in quite understandable terms how the various nuclear bombs work, but I don't think either of us can say nuclear physics is easy. To me that's a case in point.

Homology is a big part of evolution, especially once you get into genetic homologies which many scientists regard as evidence enough to conclusively show common decent. I'd say that homology (which in of itself covers a wide range of evidence from morphological to genetic; the very fact that all animals and plants use DNA can be seen as a homology that supports a common ancestor for the two) is in either most or all evidence for evolution, but I don't think that it is the best evidence for evolution. When you look at homologies, fossil sequences, paleobiogeographical data (especially predictions like Tiktaalik), embryology and so on it matches up quite well, add that to what we've learned about "micro" evolution from direct observations and things like population genetics, and that consistency of data from a plethora of fields that don't have to agree is what makes evolution so strong a theory.

Here's something that boggles my mind: In terms of homology, it really comes down to odds right? If a human and a chimp has the same mutation in the same place, then it's considered that the odds are so staggeringly rare that this could be coincidental, that it serves as evidence for common descent, right? But those odds are calculable, because if a human has 30 billion base pairs, that mutation has a 1:3 X 10^10 odds.

But then I understand that the eye evolved something like 30 times independently. Such a complicated mechanism has far greater odds against it happening independently, and yet evolution explains it as convergent evolution, which I consider to be nothing more than saying it's pure coincidence. How does that work?

[Don Fanucci]

Yet, earlier you pretended not to know about the distinction.

I wasn't pretending. I affirmed I had forgotten, and as for the distinction, I don't care about it and am really not interested in learning about it. Its a creationist term that has little scientific basis. Kind of like the "kind" argument.

Which begs the question. If only those who agree with the current paradigm are to be considered peers, then "peer review" is a circular concept. Fact is you're running a rabbit trail. Your objection was that creationists don't do their own research, but "peer review" doesn't require those reviewing to be involved in the particular research they're reviewing. So in that sense if creationism is objectionable for critiquing from the sidelines (as you claim) then peer review should be objectionable for the same reason.

You clearly don't understand what a "peer" is in science. It is not someone who automatically agrees with you. It is someone who has similar expertise and who can understand your research/writing/etc. Do you see the difference. In fact, peers and peer review are meant to help your manuscripts/grants, but more often than not are a pain in the butt.

Rant much?

I'm bored...

Can't help you there.

Do you think disproving evolution would be a major or minor discovery?

It would be an unwelcome discovery. What happens to ideas that are unwelcome?

Ahhhh. The creationist conspiracy theory raises its ugly head.

[Don Fanucci]

Actually he added computer code to the DNA that extrapolated out to phases.

This is unintelligible. Translate please.

No, you lied. Leaving out details is not explaining how he used the yeast cell to produce the DNA strand, or how the machine got it wrong to much. Stating....

This too.

[Don Fanucci]

One problem with your analogy. The painting is not alive, nor is it functional. The difference between animate and inanimate.

No, that's not really a problem with my analogy. I have adequately explained what the analogy is analogous of. Any analogy, by definition will be different to the real thing, and merely seeking out irrelevant differences does not make an analogy problematic.

Irrelevant? We are talking about living organisms. I'd think that would be a good starting point for crafting an analogy.

Venter's experiment is not a case of life coming from non-life, unless you consider DNA to be intrinsically alive.

Umm, I think you just made my point. Re-read your sentence.

[Don Fanucci]

What Venter did, was completely reprogram a bacteria to behave differently.

He did not create life.

I think not. If you reprogram something, you manipulate the settings, add commands, change commands, alter commands. What he did was remove the OS by taking out the hard drive circuit board, fan, and wires. Then he went a step farther than just inserting a new hard drive, circuit board, fan, etc, he actually inserted the instructions for doing it, which went yet another step farther because the instructions told the computer how to rebuild those parts itself, with the parts being different from the original parts.

[Don Fanucci]

Here's something that boggles my mind: In terms of homology, it really comes down to odds right? If a human and a chimp has the same mutation in the same place, then it's considered that the odds are so staggeringly rare that this could be coincidental, that it serves as evidence for common descent, right? But those odds are calculable, because if a human has 30 billion base pairs, that mutation has a 1:3 X 10^10 odds.

But then I understand that the eye evolved something like 30 times independently. Such a complicated mechanism has far greater odds against it happening independently, and yet evolution explains it as convergent evolution, which I consider to be nothing more than saying it's pure coincidence. How does that work?

Because at first pass it seems like straight coin toss probability, except the coin has four posible outcomes instead of two (1 for each nucleotide). All these calculations leading to impossibly huge numbers are correct, meaning that things could not possibly have evolved by random chance. But that is decidedly NOT how evolution works. A quick example is a protein 400 amino acids in length (1200 base pairs). If you changed that, by random chance, into some other protein, the probablity would be brutal, the similar to writing out a coin toss sequence of 1200 tosses, and then saying what is the chance of tossing a coin 1200 and getting the exact sequence of HTHHTHTTTH...TTH. So remote that it wouldn't happen. But that is not how evolution works. First, for many if not most proteins, there are key regions that are absolutely essential and cacnot be altered (conserved regions). Other regions can be altered quite easily, and you can even stick proteins together and both retain their original functions. Second, evolution is step wise. You don't expect to see a final protein evolve from a progenitor protein in one step. It is base pair by base pair (to mention one mechanism), with natural selection rating how functional the protein is, and if it functions, it resets the number of tosses. But most importantly, and what makes all these calculations meaningless, is that instead of one coin tosser, you may have millions or billions tossing coins for millions of years, which makes the numbers much more manageable and realistic.

[Isaiah 6:8]

This is unintelligible. Translate please.

while I cannot link to the video, (its youtube) he added markers in the gene that formed computer code, when the markers were read and the code imputed into a computer, it equaled text phrases.

[Isaiah 6:8]

you don't understand this?

No, you lied. Leaving out details is not explaining how he used the yeast cell to produce the DNA strand, or how the machine got it wrong to much. Stating....

Don Fanucci, on 20 July 2011 - 03:45 PM, said:

It was DNA. Except for viruses, RNA generally does not exist as long molecules, and it wasn't injected into a living organism, it was injected into an empty membrane.

Was an out right lie. He injected the DNA into a living Bacteria. You said it was not living because if you said it was alive, it would destroy your claim.

I think its clear.