Hilbert's Hotel

Diskussionsforum zur Unendlichkeit: Theismus, Atheismus, Primzahlen, Unsterblichkeit, das Universum...
Discussing Infinity: theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Gamestudio Links
Zorro Links
Newest Posts
Blobsculptor tools and objects download here
by NeoDumont. 03/28/24 03:01
Issue with Multi-Core WFO Training
by aliswee. 03/24/24 20:20
Why Zorro supports up to 72 cores?
by Edgar_Herrera. 03/23/24 21:41
Zorro Trader GPT
by TipmyPip. 03/06/24 09:27
VSCode instead of SED
by 3run. 03/01/24 19:06
AUM Magazine
Latest Screens
The Bible Game
A psychological thriller game
SHADOW (2014)
DEAD TASTE
Who's Online Now
3 registered members (AndrewAMD, Quad, TipmyPip), 865 guests, and 6 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
sakolin, rajesh7827, juergen_wue, NITRO_FOREVER, jack0roses
19043 Registered Users
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rating: 5
Page 28 of 54 1 2 26 27 28 29 30 53 54
Re: Science and Creation [Re: NITRO777] #69041
05/03/06 05:14
05/03/06 05:14
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
I'm happy that panspermia is coming about, because like snake evolution, this is where scientists with opposing views are going to tear apart each other's theories and expose them both as incompetent. Its only a matter of time; evolution is on its last leg.

Quote:

Selfreferential systems produce patterns just because they are in some ways closed. Especially, when they get energy from outside, like the earth is getting from the sun. The earth is closed as far as the most of its elements don't escape to outer space.




That wasn't really the whole point of the essay. It was just another nail in the coffin.

Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 05/03/06 05:16.

"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: Science and Creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69042
05/03/06 12:08
05/03/06 12:08
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
Quote:

This is where the difference in information lies. In order to acheive the anti-oxidant, the order of HDLs has to be lost. Without the prefix of those two examples (the 'targeting of hot spots') the loss of HDLs in favor of anti-oxidants would be considered hugely detrimental. This mutation via loss is only favorable because of the originally written DNA. Besides, you keep focusing on how awesome this mutation is. I won't disagree, its got some pretty good benefits to it, and its true benficiality is going to shine through in the medical field. However, nothing new was written. Order was lost to 'acheive' this ability. No matter how many times mutations like these occur, we will always remain humans.




You keep saying that order or information is lost by mutations. So it's time that we define what is meant by loss or gain of information, otherwise we'll continue to talk at cross-purposes.

The whole information concerning a species is contained in its gene pool. Basically, the information amount is equivalent to the sum of all alleles in the gene pool. Can we agree on that?

Now assume a mutation modified a proteine. The milano mutation affected a gene responsible for the creation of apo A-I proteine, causing the production of a modified form of that proteine, apo A-I(M). This new proteine contains an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group, causing it to pair with another proteine. This proteine pair ceases to produce HDL, but acts as pwerful antioxidant.

So far, so good. We have a new feature (antioxidant) but have lost an old feature (HDL). So we should assume that this mutation is information neutral (it's certainly not an "information loss" - the new proteine has a more complex structure than the old one).

However the old proteine is not lost! Its allele is still in the gene pool. But the allele for the new proteine is added. So the gene pool now contains one additional allele, which means that this mutation has added information.

Evolution knows of several mechanisms to change information in the gene pool. Mutations are either neutral, or add information. They can never remove information. Even if a mutation causes a proteine not to be produced, the allele for that proteine is still in the pool, and if the proteine was useful, it will remain.

Natural selection, on the other hand, is either information neutral, or deletes information. Selection can remove an allele from the gene pool.

Therefore, evolution is always in a state of equilibrium between mutations (added information) and selection (removed information). This equilibrium tends towards a point where the gene pool information remains constant on a local fitness maximum level. At this maximum, the species remains relatively unchanged over a long time period, despite permanent mutations. It can however quickly move towards a different fitness maximum by external influences (f.i. environment changes) or internal influences (f.i. a light sensitive skin cell mutation triggers a sequence of other mutations that were previously neutral, but now eventually lead to the development of eyes).

This is just a little evolution theory to make sure that we talk about the same things regarding loss or gain of information in a species' gene pool. I think the first part is acceptable even for creationists. You might reject the second part - at least until you abandon creationism, as you certainly will when studying biology with an open mind.

Re: Science and Creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69043
05/03/06 12:25
05/03/06 12:25
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
jcl Offline OP

Chief Engineer
jcl  Offline OP

Chief Engineer

Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,977
Frankfurt
Quote:

On non-coding (junk) DNA. I found a bit of interesting information.

Its comes from the crazies, but it includes references the entire way, so if you don't believe it, you don't have to. Your choice.




Yes, the content of junk DNA is probably not random. Even if junk DNA has no function in a certain species, it could have had once a function in some predecessor species it evolved from. Some sections of junk DNA are corrupted copies of functional coding DNA.

Junk DNA is considered a powerful evidence of evolution because many junk parts are identical in different species. They don't code anything, but they indicate the grade of evolutionary relationship between species.

- BTW, "panspermia" has earned some place in science fiction stories, but is not a part of evolution theory. Just in case you didn't know.

Re: Science and Creation [Re: jcl] #69044
05/04/06 17:03
05/04/06 17:03
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
A
A.Russell Offline
Expert
A.Russell  Offline
Expert
A

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,427
Japan
Going sideways on the topic a bit, because I don't pretend to know crap all about DNA. I wonder how creationists explain the remains found of other humanoids, or hominids, dated as long as three million years ago. We can't know whether they were also capable of language, since unfortunately brains and throats tend to rot away, but they certainly were upright, human-like creatures.

Were they elves or fairies? No, they don't feature in The Bible. So how do you explain them?

Isn't it also interesting that the biblical account of creation is only about a thousand years or so before people devloped writing? (actually, older writing, as old as 3,500BC, before Mesopotamia's writing, has been discovered, however it is a dead language we cannot read. An example of a more recent dead language we cannot read is the language of the people of Easter Island, who are tracable to the native New Zeland Maori and Hawaians.) I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.

Last edited by A.Russell; 05/04/06 17:42.
Re: Science and Creation [Re: A.Russell] #69045
05/04/06 20:22
05/04/06 20:22
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

Were they elves or fairies? No, they don't feature in The Bible. So how do you explain them?


Well I cant answer for young earth creationists, but me and fellow gap theorists explain them as a previous civilization wiped out from a previous flood.

I gave the wikipedia entry if your very interested, but briefly stated the model comes from looking at the very fists verses of the very first chapter of Genesis:

VERSE ONE "In the beginning God created the heavens and earth."

BIG GAP OF UNSPECIFIED TIME (accounting for previous races, dinosaurs and more primitive life forms)

VERSE TWO "And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep ..."

The "face of the deep" I highlighted above is an implication of a previous flood. Since we know that God destroyed the earth with a flood during Noah's time, we assume that he might have destroyed a previous civilization with a flood. Perhaps there were more than one previous civilizations. This also explains why the earth is measured to be so old, and why we see mass extinctions(species being drowned) and sudden emergence in the fossil record.

Quote:

(actually, older writing, as old as 3,500BC, before Mesopotamia's writing, has been discovered


Right, I dont specifically what data your using for reference here is, but scholars have placed Adam at 4000 BC so even if the 3500 bc record was correct it would not necessarily contradict biblical creationists.

Quote:

Going sideways on the topic a bit, because I don't pretend to know crap all about DNA.


I think we are all just currently "laymen scientist" in this debate. IM just knowledgeable of somethings because Ive read a lot.

Re: Science and Creation [Re: NITRO777] #69046
05/04/06 21:45
05/04/06 21:45
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.




Same thoughts here.

There is evidence indicating other reasons why certain cultures have been destroyed, certainly not all by a flood. Infact, as far as I know there is no culture that has been destroyed by a flood, mostly it would only mean a decrease of a population and maybe a technological change, if they were hit that bad at all.




"These Aztec translations are controversial. Many have no credible source and there is no proof of their authenticity. Some are based on the pictograph story of Coxcox, but other translations of this pictograph mention nothing of a flood. Most significantly, the time that these myths were heard from the local people was well after missionaries entered the region."




Like in this Aztec example, eventhough many cultures have floods in their myths, I think a lot of it might aswell be traced back to be infact just western interpretations. Does any text referring to 'and he (a south-east asian king in this case) made 40.000 stupas' really mean that the king made 40.000 stupas? There has been no evidence for such a huge amount of structures being build by one king at all.
Texts are full of things that are being exaggerated. I see world wide floods as just another exageration.

Quote:

"Many myths represent the experience of the populace writ large. People who live in regions with large reptiles tell stories of gigantic reptiles. People who live in areas prone to forest fires tell of the fire big enough to destroy the world. People who live near glaciers have myths of when the world was consumed by ice. The prevalence of flood myths needs no explanation except that humans like to live near water and water sources have a tendency to flood periodically."




Religion is a result of fear and living in a relatively hostile environment will cause myths to be told and written down.
Furthermore translational errors, wrong interpretations of pictograms, ignorance of world views that are very different from our current views and plain speculation can as a result pretty much make the Christian flood story be seen everywhere. Something we identify as being a flooded plain on a pictogram, might aswell be something totally different.

Quote:

"Other myths appear amongst many cultures. Numerous cultures recognize creatures that live off of stolen human blood, frequently identified as unnaturally prolonging their lives after death. Nearly every (if not actually every) culture has myths of humans who can change shapes into animals, either at will or under some imposed circumstance. Does the prevelance of these myths indicate that vampires and werewolves actually exist? The average creationist would certainly reject the idea that there are many gods, despite the fact that belief in Pantheons occurs worldwide."




Similar stories, yet different events occured or no event occured? Or one event and a lot of different stories about it? I definately believe most of those stories to be myths and exagerations of what really happened because of the lack of geological evidence supporting for example huge floods (there is zero evidence for a worldwide flood), and I think that eventhough one event would not necessarily mean one story-version of what happened, most stories don't share enough details to beyond any doubt indicate one event at all, let alone the different times and for example prophecies that never came true.

Quote:

One approach to this problem is to state that between the six days of Creation and the Fall of Man and the subsequent initiation of human history there must have been a "gap" in the story of thousands of years, perhaps even tens of thousands or millions of years.




This would mean there should be no human fossils dating older than 4000BC? Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that? Gap or not, it sounds pretty odd and vague if Adam and Eve were to be the first humans. I'm not going to claim dating methods are perfect and that all those million+ years dates are correct, but our current dating methods are definately reliable past or just past 4000BC. Well we've found a lot of bones and fossils which are older than 4000BC...

Cheers

Last edited by PHeMoX; 05/04/06 21:57.

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Re: Science and Creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69047
05/04/06 22:31
05/04/06 22:31
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Quote:

You keep saying that order or information is lost by mutations. So it's time that we define what is meant by loss or gain of information, otherwise we'll continue to talk at cross-purposes.




Sounds great.

Quote:

The whole information concerning a species is contained in its gene pool. Basically, the information amount is equivalent to the sum of all alleles in the gene pool. Can we agree on that?




Not quite. The AMOUNT of genetic data isn't what I'm referring to when I talk about order or information. Its the specificity of the data. If I have a chain of 100,000 bases that are the equivelant of DNA nonsense, that's not nearly as worthwhile as a chain of 1000 bases that contains the information for something specific.

For instance. 'Clean the Ford' is more specific than 'Clean the automobile' even though it contains less lettering. Its this specificity that is essential to the process of a germ becoming a person, and its exactly what we never see from a mutation.

Quote:

The milano mutation affected a gene responsible for the creation of apo A-I proteine, causing the production of a modified form of that proteine, apo A-I(M). This new proteine contains an amino acid cysteine that has a sulfhydryl group, causing it to pair with another proteine. This proteine pair ceases to produce HDL, but acts as pwerful antioxidant.




Not quite. The dimeric proteins (dimers) consist of 70% of the manufactured, mutated proteins. These represent why I say this mutation is a loss of information. Basically these proteins don't do much of anything. They don't produce HDLs, and even with their mutated 'benefit' they can't act as a useful anti-oxidant so they're mutated much like the non-dimers. This 70% proves that these proteins, because of the mutation, have become useless, especially without the pre-built targeting system.

The other 30% don't become dimers, so they're free to act like the old version of the protein and target 'hot spots' with build up. However, now they don't produce HDLs. They act like anti-oxidants, and mop up free radicals, etc. But they mutated to lose specific information, to gain the much less specific information of being an anti-oxidant, and it happened to be beneficial. Great, but it has nothing to do with evolution. At least, if you want me to believe that mutations like these could write a human.

Quote:

o far, so good. We have a new feature (antioxidant) but have lost an old feature (HDL).




Not quite, either. The HDLs are still produced, but the ability to produce them has become so crippled that it hardly works at all.

Quote:

the new proteine has a more complex structure than the old one).




I didn't read anything about its complexity in any of the sources, can you tell me where you're getting this from? Either way, this was a point mutation. Its not like a bunch of nucleotides were inserted and manufactured these much more complex proteins.

In fact, the majority of these proteins tend to bind together and become useless, or less useful. So explain to me how this is more complex? More complex in that they've binded together? That's not very useful, though. In that case, I'll just post this message twice, and then you'll have no reason to disagree with me.

Quote:

However the old proteine is not lost! Its allele is still in the gene pool. But the allele for the new proteine is added.




If a new allele is added, then fine and dandy. It really doesn't matter for evolution. The information in the added allele has to be more specific, not just beneficial, not just 'wasn't there before'. Otherwise mutations are just scrambling DNA to all sorts of effects without writing anything more specific.

Quote:

You might reject the second part - at least until you abandon creationism, as you certainly will when studying biology with an open mind.




I've spent a considerable amount of time studying on my own, and debating with evolutionists, and I've seen nothing yet that adequately brings Creationism into question. You've managed to outsmart my use of words, but not my theory.


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: Science and Creation [Re: PHeMoX] #69048
05/04/06 23:22
05/04/06 23:22
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777 Offline
Expert
NITRO777  Offline
Expert

Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
Quote:

There is evidence indicating other reasons why certain cultures have been destroyed, certainly not all by a flood. Infact, as far as I know there is no culture that has been destroyed by a flood, mostly it would only mean a decrease of a population and maybe a technological change, if they were hit that bad at all.


Right but he wanted to know a Christian explanation so I gave him one. But there are certain evidences which would appear to corroborate floods. Fossils of mass graveyards being one:



Fossils of animals caught in mid-digestion of in other positions indicating a swift death.


Quote:

This would mean there should be no human fossils dating older than 4000BC? Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that? Gap or not, it sounds pretty odd and vague if Adam and Eve were to be the first humans. I'm not going to claim dating methods are perfect and that all those million+ years dates are correct, but our current dating methods are definately reliable past or just past 4000BC. Well we've found a lot of bones and fossils which are older than 4000BC...


As I stated before, there could have been previous human-like species created before Adam and Eve? Study of the bones would indicate that were more primitive.

Re: Science and Creation [Re: Irish_Farmer] #69049
05/04/06 23:26
05/04/06 23:26
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer Offline
User
Irish_Farmer  Offline
User

Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Quote:

Yes, the content of junk DNA is probably not random. Even if junk DNA has no function in a certain species, it could have had once a function in some predecessor species it evolved from.




The main problem for evolutionists with 'junk' DNA is that it has been shown to have many purposes.

-Maintenance of the genome structure
-'hidden' genetic variety :: allow different proteins to be made from the same mRNA (along the lines of viral and anti-biotic diversity)
-regulate the speed of translation
-apparently prevent cancer and other diseased (mutations in junk dna caused these problems)

Quote:

Koop and Hood found that the DNA of the T cell receptor complex, a crucial immune system protein, is 71% identical between humans and mice over a stretch of 98-kb of DNA. This was an unexpected finding, as only 6% of the region encodes protein, while the rest consists of introns and non-coding regions around the gene. Does it follow then that we have a recent common ancestor with mice? Since this does not fit in with evolutionary theory, the authors conclude instead that the region must have specific functions that place constraints on the fixation of mutations.




It goes on and on and on, but I don't really have the time, nor do I care right now.

Quote:

Junk DNA is considered a powerful evidence of evolution because many junk parts are identical in different species. They don't code anything, but they indicate the grade of evolutionary relationship between species.




Its great that evolutionists are willing to subject themselves to ignorance, as long as that ignorance is within the 'happy-bounds' of their theory. But like I said, we're finding more and more evidence that non-coding DNA is entirely with purpose. I'm sorry if that makes your gut tighten up, and challenges your long-held beliefs, but you're wrong about this.

Give discovery time.

Quote:

BTW, "panspermia" has earned some place in science fiction stories, but is not a part of evolution theory. Just in case you didn't know.




I know they're seperate camps. That's what makes it so great. Both theories are going to tear each other apart, and in the rubble, anyone who hasn't already put a shield over their eyes will see the inadequacies of both.

Quote:

I wonder how creationists explain the remains found of other humanoids, or hominids, dated as long as three million years ago.




I don't really concern myself with reproductions made from three teeth, and part of a leg bone.

Quote:

I wish no-one could have read the crap that got into the bible, what a lot of trouble it has caused.




I shed a single tear for ignorance.

Quote:

Then how do you explain humanoids fossils that are older than that?




Humanoid and human don't always go hand in hand.


"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
Re: Science and Creation [Re: NITRO777] #69050
05/05/06 00:19
05/05/06 00:19
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX Offline
Senior Expert
PHeMoX  Offline
Senior Expert

Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
Quote:

Fossils of mass graveyards being one:




Well the existence of mass graves themselves doesn't indicate much, it's no evidence for a flood.

Quote:

In the past, scientists have suggested a number of possible explanations for such mass deaths in the fossil record, Sampson says. These include drought, volcanism, fire and botulism poisoning from water tainted by carcasses.




Quote:

Oard, then, gave out other locations of massive grave sites in Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada, in the Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah, not in Vernal, and the Cleveland-Lloyd Dinosaur Quarry in Price, Utah. But he neglects on purpose to mentioned about the grave sites being the result of carnosaurs being lured into mud traps at the sound and site of distressed prey after they unwittingly coming into the mud pit for a drink of water, failed attempts to cross rivers at flood stages, and succumbing to a severe drought.


--> about the drought.

When there's no indication of a flood in the geological record, then the above mentioned other options seems more obvious to have happened to me than a flood. Especially drought or the poisoning. Perhaps there are other reasons. Elephants have a tendency to die near a place where lot's of other elephants have died before them. An elephant mass grave could thus also be found, having nothing to do with any catastrophic event but simple deaths.

Quote:

“Nests, eggs, and babies are a challenge to a flood model, but there are enough unknowns associated with the data that solid conclusions are difficult to draw.” or so Oard assumes. There is no unknowns associated with data as Oard claims. Nests, eggs, and babies actually refutes the Flood model. The nests, eggs, and babies would have been easily destroyed if there ever was a Noah's Flood according to the YECs. Oard believes that volcanoes and meteorite impacts, especially the one that was made in the Gulf of Mexico, occurred during the flood. However, there's nothing in the Genesis 7 passage that said anything about meteor showers and volcanic eruptions happening during the Flood. Besides, there are no volcanoes and meteorite craters found in the Middle East, as far as I know.




I agree that mass graves could indicate swift deaths indeed, but like said above certain things that were found still in place as if the creatures all died in a frozen moment make a flood highly unlikely. A flood would destroy any context, mixing up the bones and spreading them across a very large area. The picture like you've shown although mixed up, does not seem mixed up because of a world wide flood, infact I doubt you would even find a mass grave as a result of a flood. (A very small (normal) flood could be possible, then the bones just couldn't be transported any further because of a certain obstacles for example, but further geological evidence must then prove if it really was a flood.)
In the even of a great world wide flood there would be no fossil footprints of dinosaurs don't you think?

Quote:

Humanoid and human don't always go hand in hand.




That's because you don't believe in evolution. Not that it requires any faith at all, the evidence says enough. Besides, why would God make a human version 1 and later on a human version 2. That doesn't make much sense, does it?
Infact why would a God make monkeys that look damn much like us or the other way around? (You know what Darwin suggested.) I guess God must have a good sense of humor,

Cheers

Last edited by PHeMoX; 05/05/06 00:33.

PHeMoX, Innervision Software (c) 1995-2008

For more info visit: Innervision Software
Page 28 of 54 1 2 26 27 28 29 30 53 54

Moderated by  jcl, Lukas, old_bill, Spirit 

Kompaktes W�rterbuch des UnendlichenCompact Dictionary of the Infinite


Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1