Originally posted by Roy
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
In the Beginning was Information.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostProtein structure is not simply proteins. The point of this article is to answer your question about amyloids.
You are picking frog hairs over terminology. Yes the primitive protein structures were primitive beginnings of RNA structures.
It is obvious you are playing 'blind man's bluff' meaningless picking at terminology to justify your agenda without the foundation knowledge of even organic chemistry.'
And a protein structure is just the 3D shape of a protein.
Keep flailing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostAre you just playing or are you really that stupid?
How does having green 0 and 00 on a roulette wheel guarantee the casino will make money on the game in the long term?
As usual, you are avoiding my question.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostI was going to write a technical response here, but I can't see the point. You know perfectly well that RNA is formed by linking the ribose of one ribonucleotide to the phosphate group of another, and the net effect is a strand in which ribonucleotide bases are strung together like diamonds on a bracelet - joined together but not necessarily directly touching.
Yet you claim these strands are formed without a chemical reaction.
But that isn't what was claimed and it isn't what I was responding to.
And, the fact that there is a chemical reaction involved is totally irrelevant to the sequence of the bases, which is what carries the information.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostI'm not asking how a mutation might be beneficial or spread through a population.
As usual, you are avoiding my question.
Differential reproductive success. Individuals with reproductive advantage tend to reproduce more and spread their genes through the population.Last edited by HMS_Beagle; 07-22-2019, 02:04 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rossum View PostIt is for creationists who have neither. Or do you have a paper describing divine creation of the relevant molecules?
Originally posted by rossum View Post
Non-intelligent, natural processes can make purines and pyrimidines in conditions like those on a prebiotic earth.
Originally posted by rossum View PostYes it is. Frank Lloyd Wright was an intelligent designer. ID has a great deal to say about the origin of that particular intelligent designer.
Or are you telling us that the intelligence in an intelligent designer is low complexity and so does not require design? Did Frank Lloyd Wright require design?
Originally posted by rossum View PostConfirming my point. An intelligent designer contains complex information and so requires deign. ID studiously avoids the point bacause it cannot just say "God is eternal" since that would destroy the political idea behind ID.
Originally posted by rossum View PostSo measure it as Kolmogorov information, which is defined as the smallest representation of the information. And yes, simple evolutinary processe can increase Kolmogorov information as well.
The complexity of a string is determined by the smallest representation of the string itself (not the functionality of the string), but the smaller the representation, the less complex the string is, not more complex.
You have it totally backwards.
Originally posted by rossum View PostJesus was a material being and biologically alive. Jesus is God. Or are you a non-Trinitarian?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostUntrue. If someone had said, "there is a chemical reaction involved when nucleotides are joined together", I would have agreed with them.
And if several ribonucleotide bases are joined together into a single polymeric ribonucleic acid molecule, which is what happens during transcription, that would also be a chemical reaction.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe Laws of Nature limit the possible options of each mutation. Yes mutations may be point mutation, Insertion or deletion, but this randomness only applies to the individual mutation, and not the chain of mutations that the outcome is determined by Natural Laws. Actually the effect of each mutation is limited by the laws of nature reflected in the laws of chemistry, the environment and the resulting natural selection. The mutation also may be positive, neutral or harmful, and most are neutral, which is determined by the physiology, needs and benefits of the population which is natural selection, and NOT random.
Unlike your original assertion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostUntrue. If someone had said, "there is a chemical reaction involved when nucleotides are joined together", I would have agreed with them.
But that isn't what was claimed and it isn't what I was responding to.
And, the fact that there is a chemical reaction involved is totally irrelevant to the sequence of the bases, which is what carries the information."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostOK, I think you're finally admitting that the "what" (the type of mutation that is occuring) is also random in addition to the "when" and "where".
Unlike your original assertion.
Your blatant blind hostility toward science base don your agenda is very obvious.
Randomness is only observed in the outcome of single events, and not the processes of science in abiogenesis and evolution.Last edited by shunyadragon; 07-22-2019, 02:35 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rossum View PostThe mechanism is how the original mutation is inherited in the offspring of the initial carrier. Does the mutation result in an increased number of inherited copies (a beneficial mutation), the average number of inherited copies (a neutral mutation) or a decreased number of inherited copies (a deleterious mutation). The process works like compound interest.
As an example, take a stable population of 1000 organisms; on average each organism has one descendant in the next generation. Now let a beneficial mutation appear with a 1% advantage, so the mutated organism will have on average 1.01 descendants in the next generation. For comparison I include ten other mutated organism with a 1% disadvantage. Start with a population of 10 deleterious, 989 neutral (or unmutated) and 1 beneficial mutations. See what happens if we let the population reproduce for one thousand generations:
Code:Generation Deleterious Neutral Beneficial ---------- ----------- ------ ---------- 0 10.0 989.00 1.00 1 9.9 989.00 1.01 10 9.0 989.00 1.10 100 3.7 989.00 2.70 500 0.1 989.00 144.77 700 0.0 989.00 1059.16 1000 0.0 989.00 20959.16
This is a very simple model and easy to set up on a spreadsheet, but it is enough to show the advantage natural selection gives a beneficial mutation and how it spreads through a population over the generations.
Wow.
Where are your calculations on the likelihood that a beneficial mutation will be the difference between life and death for the organism with the beneficial mutation compared with the other organisms without the mutation. After all, if the situation never occurs, then how can the beneficial mutation be selected (how can you claim it will have more offspring)?.
Also, where are your calculations on the likelihood that an organism with a beneficial mutation will also have a competing deleterious mutation? Suppose a bunny with a 1% improvement in vision is also 1% less agile than a normal bunny?
You simply assign a 1% increase in offspring and call it a day.
Simple model? More like a simple minded model.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostCompound interest?
Wow.
Where are your calculations on the likelihood that a beneficial mutation will be the difference between life and death for the organism with the beneficial mutation compared with the other organisms without the mutation. After all, if the situation never occurs, then how can the beneficial mutation be selected (how can you claim it will have more offspring)?.
Also, where are your calculations on the likelihood that an organism with a beneficial mutation will also have a competing deleterious mutation? Suppose a bunny with a 1% improvement in vision is also 1% less agile than a normal bunny?
You simply assign a 1% increase in offspring and call it a day.
Simple model? More like a simple minded model.
I take it you're not going to try and defend Meyer's "Darwin's Doubt" stupidity about the Cambrian explosion, right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostCompound interest?
Where are your calculations on the likelihood that a beneficial mutation will be the difference between life and death for the organism with the beneficial mutation compared with the other organisms without the mutation.
Also, where are your calculations on the likelihood that an organism with a beneficial mutation will also have a competing deleterious mutation? Suppose a bunny with a 1% improvement in vision is also 1% less agile than a normal bunny?
You simply assign a 1% increase in offspring and call it a day.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DaveB View PostCompound interest?
Wow.
Where are your calculations on the likelihood that a beneficial mutation will be the difference between life and death for the organism with the beneficial mutation compared with the other organisms without the mutation. After all, if the situation never occurs, then how can the beneficial mutation be selected (how can you claim it will have more offspring)?.
Also, where are your calculations on the likelihood that an organism with a beneficial mutation will also have a competing deleterious mutation? Suppose a bunny with a 1% improvement in vision is also 1% less agile than a normal bunny?
You simply assign a 1% increase in offspring and call it a day.
Simple model? More like a simple minded model.Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.
MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...
Comment
Comment