The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2021, 09:50:15 am
Home Help Search Login Register
News: Paul & Fred have reached a settlement with Stardock!

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderator: Death 999)
| | |-+  Cool Comic Booklets.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20 Print
Author Topic: Cool Comic Booklets.  (Read 75508 times)
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #75 on: June 28, 2006, 12:55:14 am »

Hey Luki, my life is a series of train wrecks.. No worries here.. Wink
Logged
meep-eep
Forum Admin
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2847



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #76 on: June 28, 2006, 02:03:35 am »

Some general remarks, as I don't want to get dragged into this ultimately pointless discussion:

  • Don't confuse induction with deduction. Induction uses incomplete information to come to new statements, and is inherently fallible. It has often been useful in practice, but it can never prove anything. A traditional example of induction is "All observed crows are black, therefore all crows are black.".
  • "purpose" is not the same as "function". "function" is what something does or is used for; "purpose" is what something is designed to do. Function does not imply purpose.
Logged

“When Juffo-Wup is complete
when at last there is no Void, no Non
when the Creators return
then we can finally rest.”
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #77 on: June 28, 2006, 02:43:17 am »

Meep thanx for your input.. I'd like to add to your important observation. Show me ANY natuaristic force that has function other than somthing biological. All intelligently made machines have function, all naturalistic forces have cause and effect..

Thanx.
Logged
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #78 on: June 28, 2006, 05:02:24 am »

Quote
No, that's what happens when you do it. Many people do just fine in those situations.

With the exception of those who get burned at the stake, stoned, shuned and run over by tanks, yes you are correct. Wink

But now, that is what happens when you do it, brother. The torch has been passed to you. Neal, Luki. . .and rise Sir Luki.


Quote
Hopefully this was a way too literal enough answer for your way too literal comment

Joke all you want, but more people are killed every year by trains, than by flying pigs.
Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #79 on: June 28, 2006, 08:19:52 am »

With the exception of those who get burned at the stake, stoned, shuned and run over by tanks, yes you are correct. Wink

In general, I think those things happen after one of the parties has already stopped talking. Unless you want to make a case for protesters and tank drivers debating their differences as one party is being slowly run over, I'd say this is one of the things that happens when you stop talking. Remember, it takes two two tal kas well (the kind of talking I was implying). Well, unless you're Wade Wilson.

Quote
But now, that is what happens when you do it, brother. The torch has been passed to you. Neal, Luki. . .and rise Sir Luki.

My name isn't Neal, I'm not on fire, and I've yet to make a single topic AFAIK go boom. On what do you base those assumptions?

Quote
Joke all you want, but more people are killed every year by trains, than by flying pigs.

Please provide viable sources for this fanciful claim. Statistics from an acclaimed source would go a long way towards proving your case.

Quote from: RT

Ok fair enough. In forensic sciences detectives use what is called deductive reasoning. It IS a scientific process. They are not there to witness a crime but by deduction of what we DO know, can draw fairly accurate conclusions. Somthing real simple:

Detective Riggs finds a body with a gunshot wound to the head. He imediately can draw some conclusions. A)the person did not die of natural causes and B) there is intent to kill from an intelligent mind,Wether it be by suicide or homicide, guns don't kill people, people kill people. Now there is a chance of accident. Further investigations such as blood splatter, powder burns, body position etc. are all weiged in accordance to deduce the most logical explanation. If another person is concluded as the trigger finger, things like,motive, oportunity, etc. are investigated.

This seems a tad flawed to me. Deductive reasoning can point to a plausible cause, but it wont necessarily prove it. In the case you describe, there is a whole heap of actual factual evidence that you base your conclusions on, which will later be used as evidence. These are solid known things, the significance of which we all can agree on. To illustrate my point, I'll rewrite your story (starring you me and Nanuk, the whale fat merchant!)

Detective RTyp06 finds a body with a gunshot wound to the head. He imediately can draw some conclusions. A)the person did not die of natural causes and B) there is intent to kill from an intelligent mind,Wether it be by suicide or homicide, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

However, detective Lukipela disagrees. That is not a gunshot wound he claims! It is a hole caused by blunt trauma form some sort of swinging object, like a crowbar! Obivously, someone beat this poor man so hard, that his brain was thrown out throught the back of his head! Therefore, it must be a homicide.

Tagging along, Nanuk the whale fat merchant disagrees. He has seen this many times. It is what happens when one angers Argarak, lord of wlaruses. His divine might has come down, and seared a hole through the poor mans skull. A failure to atone in time, not a homicide, but divine will!

Of course, not all these conclusions can be true. So without further ado, and without collecting any evidence that all can agree on, they turn to the esteemed judge Wattson to solve the case. Unfortunately, Wattson has been in an institution all his life. He knows little of how the world works. RTyp06 describes this "gun" to him. Lukipela speaks of the "crowbar", whilst Nanuk points out the furious might of Argarak.

Still, without further evidence, no verdict can be given, and any version can be the truth.


The point being that you are looking at DNA and saying, "Obivously the evidence points to design." However, if your evidence is not something that is agreed upon as evidence, it is worth very little. Nanuk would never hold up in court, no matter how much he considers a vision form Argarak saying "I did it and I'm glad I did it" evidence.

So what you need to do is to find some sort of hard evidence, rather than just speculation and "deduction".

As an aside, even though all parties in that story believe they are right, none of them might be.

Quote

Likewise, in principle, we can apply the same deductive reasoning to detect design. We work off what we know about design and apply it to the artifact being examined. Lets say I find Alaxander graham bell's original telephone. By the unlikely arangement of parts, it's specified complexity, by figuring out it's use, how it translates vocal sounds to electrical impulses and decodes them; knowing the unlikelyhood of any naturalistic phenomina producing such a device, the irreducable complexity of the device (remove the reciever on either end and it doesn't work, remove the electricty and it doesn't work) we can pretty much infer design. Now the fact that we know alexander built and marketed his device is the icing on the cake.

Now all the same reasoning can be put to DNA the only part we don't have is the who and how. This reasoning is based on what we DO know so it's not an argument from ignorance. Since every devised machine on this planet comes from an intelligent source, DNA meets every aspect of a designed machine, no naturalistic force can account for such a devise, I think it safe to say we are looking at an alien technology. Not alien as in little green men and saucers but a technology level currently much higer than our current technolgy levels.

This just seems skewed somehow to me. You can deduce that the telephone is a designed machine. You believe that DNA meets every aspect of a designed machine. Others have been arguing that it doesn't. Without proof, both sides are just guessing here, making your deduction kind of null and void.

Or something.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2006, 08:24:07 am by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #80 on: June 28, 2006, 11:04:11 am »

Now all the same reasoning can be put to DNA the only part we don't have is the who and how. This reasoning is based on what we DO know so it's not an argument from ignorance. Since every devised machine on this planet comes from an intelligent source, DNA meets every aspect of a designed machine, no naturalistic force can account for such a devise, I think it safe to say we are looking at an alien technology. Not alien as in little green men and saucers but a technology level currently much higer than our current technolgy levels.
You're using the falsity of evolution ("no naturalistic force can account for such a devise [sic]") to disprove evolution. Circular reasoning. Besides, I just demonstrated that the criterion you used to determine what is "designed" is so weak that almost anything is covered by it.

Quote
Plutonium is subject to well known, provable naturalistic forces. It is subject to the same thermodynamic laws that decay everything to a state of entropy. That is the radiation will eventually run out and reach a point of equlibrium. DNA bucks the thermodynamic laws and scientists still can't really explain why.
In what way does DNA buck thermodynamics? If you want to argue based on the idea that it creates additional complexity and thus violates the second law, note that life is not a closed system; it relies on solar radiation (and, to a limited extent, heat emitted from the cooling insides of Earth), which is obviously increasing entropy. Although life could be considered a local entropy decrease, it clearly increases entropy outside itself even more. This isn't even in dispute to my knowledge.

Quote
Lol, no it doesnt.... Hahaha! Where did you come up with that? Specified complexity is complexity with a purpose. The purpose of DNA is to hold all the biological information from completele body plan down to building copies of itself and the microcellular machines it HAS to have to build.
By applying the definition of specified complexity to an observed case. If the result seems ridiculous, it is because specified complexity is ridiculous (or the notion that anything is random at all is ridiculous, in which case the radioactive atoms must have information content to account for the observed distribution of radiation, which would limit their specified complexity but still leave it higher than the genetic code in any organism given even a small lump of radioactive stuff).

Seriously, I gave you the entire deduction chain and all you do is say that the end result is ridiculous? Can you find any fault in my reasoning; it's a straightforward calculation based on Dembski's own definition (the only definition of specified complexity I can find that is clear enough (barely) to make any sensible deductions)?

Quote
The problem with RNA based life thus becomes how did the first RNA molecules come to be? RNA molecules are still complex data storage molecules and there is still no known naturalistic mechanisims for creating it. Then you have the problem of how did it evolve into the DNA, RNA, Protien, irreducable complex machine it is today?
The sources referenced in the Wikipedia article address these questions somewhat. To summarise: nucleotides that compose RNA have been shown in experiments to occur spontaneously in primaeval Earth-like conditions (as far as we known what they are, of course), although it seems that these were never observed to combine into RNA capable of self-reproduction. RNA and DNA are similar enough (remove OH, add H) for e.g. radiation to break down RNA nucleotides allowing DNA to form. Alternatively, note that DNA replicates through RNA, meaning that the right RNA could create (in the right conditions) DNA (I admit to being unable to explain this in detail).

You are correct, however, in pointing out that the origin of the cell is still somewhat mysterious. That doesn't invalidate anything (especially not theories about what happened after cells had formed), but it does leave some room for doubt. The current theories are incomplete and probably not very accurate.

Quote
What observable consequences does Darwin's theory provide? Every so called example of evolution is a one point mutation, only damages or changes EXISTING protiens and never produces an increase in information to a genome.
This argument blatantly ignores arguments noted earlier in this thread. For one thing, it predicts that organisms will, through mutation and/or recombination and natural selection adapt to changing conditions, drastics changes in environment leading to drastic changes in organisms (see e.g. an major extinction event). This has been demonstrated over and over again. It also predicts that the maximum complexity of these organisms will increase over time; this seems to be supported by paleontology.

Quote
Actually we can make predictions using ID. The so called "Junk" DNA shouldn't be predicted in an ID model. ANd as it turns out scientists are finding purposes for this so called "Junk". ANother example is the so called residual organs such the appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth and so on. What once was a list of many is now down to one maybe?

Dawkins loves to jump on this, what a poor designer. If we were designed then why the "bad"design such as backward facing cones in the eye, wisdom teeth etc. The fundamental problem with this argument is that so called bad design doesn't mean it wasn't designed. I may have a Yugo and a Ferarri. The Ferarri may out class the yugo in every aspect.. but like it or not, the Yugo is still designed in a factory by intelligent workers following a blueprint.
You quite neatly painted yourself into a corner with that one. On one hand, ID predicts a good design, on the other, the design doesn't have to be good. In other words, you've said nothing.
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
Deus Siddis
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1387



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #81 on: June 28, 2006, 03:10:58 pm »

Quote
My name isn't Neal, I'm not on fire, and I've yet to make a single topic AFAIK go boom.

I made one typo, but come on, you've never watched the olympics on your tv (maybe there's no torch in the winter games though?)


Quote
On what do you base those assumptions?

From the link you gave a while ago. The people of that forum should be commended for their tolerance of your saying things people don't want to hear. Smiley


Quote
Please provide viable sources for this fanciful claim. Statistics from an acclaimed source would go a long way towards proving your case.

http://uqm.stack.nl/forum/index.php?topic=3029.75

I'd provide more, but I can't for religious reasons (one shall not reveal renderings or scrolls of the pigasus, or thou shalt be made to scrub the floors of the lord's super king sized bathroom, for all of eternity.) Just you wait though, winged pigs will be bigger than UFOs. When the American movie industry gets  around to remaking the Wizard of Oz because they can't come up with anything new anymore,  it won't be evil monkeys that you see flying around.
Logged
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #82 on: June 28, 2006, 06:49:17 pm »

Alternatively, note that DNA replicates through RNA, meaning that the right RNA could create (in the right conditions) DNA (I admit to being unable to explain this in detail).
Quote

Several different types of RNA viruses, with HIV being the most infamous example, replicate themselves via these means. After invading a cell, the virus's RNA hijacks the ribosomes for a brief while in order to generate an enzyme called "Reverse Transcriptase." This enzyme in turn will shuffle along the viral RNA and appropriate local nucleotides in order to generate a DNA complement to the existing viral RNA strand. Once that DNA exists, it proceeds to hijack the cell's existing DNA transcriptase (normally used for replication) in order to generate a complementary strand of viral DNA. Once the double stranded viral DNA is complete, it will proceed to integrate itself into the host genome and lie dormant, at least until conditions are correct for a mass viral replication and excretion.

Quote
The problem with RNA based life thus becomes how did the first RNA molecules come to be? RNA molecules are still complex data storage molecules and there is still no known naturalistic mechanisims for creating it. Then you have the problem of how did it evolve into the DNA, RNA, Protien, irreducable complex machine it is today?

It's not irreducibly complex. The RNA virus above clearly demonstrates that the DNA and protein components are not necessary, so long as they can be appropriated from a suitable host. And if bacteria are intelligent, then viruses must be too, yes? Never mind that they're not even really considered alive.

Quote
Meep thanx for your input.. I'd like to add to your important observation. Show me ANY natuaristic force that has function other than somthing biological. All intelligently made machines have function, all naturalistic forces have cause and effect..

Volcanoes. Their purpose is to vent the pressure generated by the molten core of the Earth, and the rocks clearly show intent to generate this structure. The rock and ash thrown up into the classic cone shape do so in order to create a stable structure that provides a channel for venting gases and magma, as well as intice foolish humans to create settlements nearby so that they may be consumed later, during eruption. Clearly, this shows intelligence on the part of the rocks, and speaks of the great plan designed for them to carry out this purpose. After all, this is an irreducibly complex system; remove the rocks or the magma, and it will fail to function.

The above is the most ludicrous thing I have ever written.
Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #83 on: June 29, 2006, 12:06:11 am »

Ok two things to reply to here, first volcanos.. Volcanos spew heated gasses trapped beneath the earth. Cause, pressure of heated gases, effect volcano.. Thus this is a naturalistic "cause and effect" function.  Roll Eyes I had to look up function because I didn't think it applied to cause and effect. I've never asked what is the function of a volcano or what is the function of the sun, so it just doesn't sound right. Ive always used the word function as it relates to programming or designed machines. A toilet has a function, a lamp has a function, DNA has a function, a volcano has a function? Ok so live and learn.. What is the cause of DNA and what is the effect of DNA?
Cause: Random Chemicals coming togther in the primordial soup
Effect: Most densely packed, universal information system in the universe!

Nice!


Second, "painted into corner". "Bad Design" is subjective and interpretive. "Junk" DNA is an actual, tangible artifact. Two different things. The so called "Junk" actually poses more of a problem for natural selection as why would a cell carry around this extra baggage? Especially, what 90% ?being "Junk" in the human genome alone. It takes energy to replicate thus affecting survival fitness. Secondly, the Junk DNA doesn't code for protiens, is either garbled or has many repeating patterns. If this were truely an artifact of evolution wouldn't at least SOME of it be recognizeable?

What we know about "Junk "DNA is that every DNA strand has it in every organism we've studied. Some have more, some have less. We know that the DNA molecule is always filled with peptide bonds from end to end. You never see a DNA molecule with lose, free floating ends. So one possible prediction from a design philosophy is that the DNA molecule could simply be putting in filler data for a stable molecule. There are start and stop codons that surround the useable DNA then the rest is so called junk. Just like I may use X amount of my harddrive, but the unused sectors may simply be random 1s or 0's.. Or a combination there of.

That's only one possibility. Another is that Junk DNA has purpose of which we will discover as we learn more about it. That is another possible prediction.


Now the ferrari and yugo. A yugo's affordability and gas millage might be more practical for granny and her liquor store runs. Thus "bad" desgin is subjective. So I wasn't saying dawkins is right, that  some things are badly designed, but rather even if some things can be seen as bad design, it's still design nonetheless.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2006, 12:19:16 am by RTyp06 » Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #84 on: June 29, 2006, 12:13:54 am »

Quote
You're using the falsity of evolution ("no naturalistic force can account for such a devise [sic]") to disprove evolution. Circular reasoning.

Sorry, what I meant to say is that no KNOWN naturalistic force can account... Thus I am appealing to what we currently know. And I do know how to spell "device"..

BTW, I'm preparing for vactaion out of state next week so my posts are a little rushed.

Luki,  still pondering your revised detective story..
« Last Edit: June 29, 2006, 01:25:47 am by RTyp06 » Logged
RTyp06
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 491



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #85 on: June 29, 2006, 02:56:15 am »

Quote
By applying the definition of specified complexity to an observed case. If the result seems ridiculous, it is because specified complexity is ridiculous (or the notion that anything is random at all is ridiculous, in which case the radioactive atoms must have information content to account for the observed distribution of radiation, which would limit their specified complexity but still leave it higher than the genetic code in any organism given even a small lump of radioactive stuff).

Salt Crystals: Follows well defined laws, produces an independently given repetetitive pattern, and is therefore specified. But it will be simple, not complex.

Uranium: The exact time sequence of radioactive emissions will be contingent, complex but not specified.

The genetic code is both complex AND specified. The key word here is specified, ie specific. A specific function. Uranium does not have a specific function. What is uranium's specific function? To radiate radioactivity? What is the function of the genetic code? Assembly instructions for building protiens, microcellular machines and replication. Do you really think uranium falls into the category of specified complexity?

Logged
Lukipela
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3619


The Ancient One


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #86 on: June 29, 2006, 08:35:45 am »

I made one typo, but come on, you've never watched the olympics on your tv (maybe there's no torch in the winter games though?)

I must have missed the part where the torch bearer kneels and is awarded knighthood at the start of the games. I have no idea about the torch in winter games, I rarely watch sport on television. Well, except when we're playing those dastardly swedes in icehockey.

Quote
From the link you gave a while ago. The people of that forum should be commended for their tolerance of your saying things people don't want to hear. Smiley

Even from that link, I see n othread going up in flames (such as your speciality is), just people going from boring pondering of the universe, to a heated evolutionary debate. Sometimes a catalyst is needed.

Quote

I'm am awestruck. Very good, based ón this excellent source, I accept your claim.

Quote from: RTyp06
Luki,  still pondering your revised detective story..

Don't ponder too hard or long, it was not that seriously meant. Essentially, I was trying to point out that while logical deduction is a wholly accepted tool, you cannot actually use it to prove something, especially if there is a lack of universally accepted facts in the matter.

If it helps the comparison, I'm fairly sure that scientists began accepting the notion of atoms long before atoms where proven. Just because you find that something is the only logical explanation, doesn't make it true until you can prove it. And since your theory is essentially unprovable, it makes it undebatable and unchangable.

Sure, it is a possibility, and it might even be true, but it is not a scientific theory, for the reasons outlined earlier in this thread (and the essay that was linked).

Quote
What we know about "Junk "DNA is that every DNA strand has it in every organism we've studied. Some have more, some have less. We know that the DNA molecule is always filled with peptide bonds from end to end. You never see a DNA molecule with lose, free floating ends. So one possible prediction from a design philosophy is that the DNA molecule could simply be putting in filler data for a stable molecule. There are start and stop codons that surround the useable DNA then the rest is so called junk. Just like I may use X amount of my harddrive, but the unused sectors may simply be random 1s or 0's.. Or a combination there of.

I was under the impression that prokaryotes contain minimal amounts of junk DNA. They certainly contain no introns and suchlike, which is why you cannot simply move eukaryotic DNA to a prokaryote with out working on it for a bit.
Linky. Also, why is this a problem for natural selection? It would seem to me that lots of leftover bits and pieces that may once have done something would be more indicative of random mutations than of a clear design.

To expand your other example, your designed organism is the Yugo. It does exactly what it is supposed to do, and what the designer had in mind. Had it been designed better, it could have been a Ferrari. However, it can never become one, only change smal lthings like colour and such.

The evolutionary car however, also have 4 wheels and an engine, but it contains various bits and pieces sticking out of it's hood, sides, benches and mirrors. The steering wheel contains small beatiful oval shaped forms. The left back wheel has spikes. Something looking suspiciously like shotgun seems to be groing out of its fuselage. In short, it carries a lot of completely unnecessary stuff left over fomr when it wa sued for something else. It looks vaguely like a cross between a Yougo, a Jeep and a inverted motorcycle, and is far less efficient thatn it's designed counterpart. But one day, it may grow into something with the effect of an ferrari (though it will of course look like crap). These changes happen very slowly.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2006, 08:57:04 am by Lukipela » Logged

What's up doc?
Novus
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1938


Fot or not?


View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #87 on: June 29, 2006, 11:19:25 am »

The genetic code is both complex AND specified. The key word here is specified, ie specific. A specific function. Uranium does not have a specific function. What is uranium's specific function? To radiate radioactivity? What is the function of the genetic code? Assembly instructions for building protiens, microcellular machines and replication. Do you really think uranium falls into the category of specified complexity?
You keep using "specified" without explaining what it means to you. I already demonstrated that the formal definition does not mean what you seem to think it means, and you're still making the assumption that DNA is, in some way, "specified" without giving an explanation why apart from an appeal to organisation that essentially relies on evolution being false, the very matter you seek to prove. If you are using the term "specified" in some other fashion than the sources you refer to, please define it.

As for junk DNA, there are two major points. Some of this DNA may, in current or future organisms, have a positive effect on their survival and/or reproduction ("serve a purpose"); especially the effect in future organisms is hard to determine. Furthermore, unless the extra DNA has a noticeable harmful effect, there is little or no selection pressure to remove it. Of course, from an ID PoV, you could argue that the junk DNA is for "future expansion".
Logged

RTFM = Read the fine manual.
RTTFAQ = Read the Ur-Quan Masters Technical FAQ.
Toroid
Zebranky food
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #88 on: June 29, 2006, 02:38:57 pm »

I think RTyp06 has a very good point. If you look at all the complex objects in the world that have a purpose, apart from life, what do they all have in common? Exactly, they're created by an intelligent designer. So it stands to reason that life is also created by an intelligent designer.

You know... they have more in common... these objects have all been created by humans! So life must also be created by humans! Zounds! Humans have been time travelling and seeding life!
Logged
Draxas
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1044



View Profile
Re: Cool Comic Booklets.
« Reply #89 on: June 29, 2006, 11:13:03 pm »

Second, "painted into corner". "Bad Design" is subjective and interpretive. "Junk" DNA is an actual, tangible artifact. Two different things. The so called "Junk" actually poses more of a problem for natural selection as why would a cell carry around this extra baggage? Especially, what 90% ?being "Junk" in the human genome alone. It takes energy to replicate thus affecting survival fitness. Secondly, the Junk DNA doesn't code for protiens, is either garbled or has many repeating patterns. If this were truely an artifact of evolution wouldn't at least SOME of it be recognizeable?

Not in the least. I think Luki covered this pretty well in his post above. In addition, junk DNA serves as a buffer against constant mutation of the genome (which happens far more often than we're aware, but is usually isolated to Junk DNA, so we don't notice the effects), since every mutation that occurs doesn't necessarily affect an essential physiological process. As Luki mentioned, prokaryotes do not have this trait of Junk DNA, and this is in no small part responsible for why prokaryote genomes are constantly mutating and generating new strains of organisms, for better or for worse for subsequent generations (usually better, though, since selection pressures on most prokaryotes involve imminently lethal consequences, unlike more complex organisms). The energy required to replicate this Junk DNA is more than made up for when a 100-base deletion occurs within its confines; if something like that occurred within, say, the gene for insulin or hemoglobin, the effects would be extremely detrimental to the organisms survival (mind you, these aren't the exact differences that cause diabetes or sickle celled anemia, but the point stands).

Quote
What we know about "Junk "DNA is that every DNA strand has it in every organism we've studied. Some have more, some have less. We know that the DNA molecule is always filled with peptide bonds from end to end. You never see a DNA molecule with lose, free floating ends. So one possible prediction from a design philosophy is that the DNA molecule could simply be putting in filler data for a stable molecule. There are start and stop codons that surround the useable DNA then the rest is so called junk. Just like I may use X amount of my harddrive, but the unused sectors may simply be random 1s or 0's.. Or a combination there of.

As mentioned, most prokaryotes do not have Junk DNA in any significant quantity. In fact, some prokaryotic genomes (ie. Mycoplama) are so densely packed that the genes actually overlap each other, with start and stop codons integrated into the sequences of other genes, and the actual transcription only occuring on a very small section of the DNA so the right codons are accessed by the RNA Transcriptase. This occurs all around the entire circumferance of the genome of this organism. Suffice to say, even single base mutations in Mycoplama can have potentially disasterous effects, but the DNA is perfectly stable nonetheless.

Quote
I think RTyp06 has a very good point. If you look at all the complex objects in the world that have a purpose, apart from life, what do they all have in common? Exactly, they're created by an intelligent designer. So it stands to reason that life is also created by an intelligent designer.

You know... they have more in common... these objects have all been created by humans! So life must also be created by humans! Zounds! Humans have been time travelling and seeding life!

Well, I'm officially confused as to which side of this debate you're on. But, just in case...

*Founds Homo Deus, persecutes clones*
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 ... 20 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!