Who Made The Code? (page 7)

snare&racket

Lastly End of Mysteries,

Check your phone line, Hoyle was proven wrong when we took a photo of the radaiation from the big bang....

What is it with you guys and science opinion from half a century ago, science is humble it changes with the evidence ! It gets better! Before you think that is a negative, think about it, yes it changes, but once the new evidence is in, it is in! Once you see the earth is not the centre of the solar system, that idea is proven untrue forever!

http://www.space.com/20330-cosmic-microwave-background-explained-infographic.html

Science is ony useful with the latest evidence, you are quoting decades old opinions.

This is MY WHOLE POINT.

Viviane

Perry, why do you think that the amount of books of unknown size stacked to the moon or the number of terabytes matters?

BTW, is that compressed and/or deduplucated terabytes or raw data?

snare&racket

EOM,

If you are stll unsure take a peak at these short videos,

http://www.dnatube.com/video/11928/Natural-Selection-and-Adaptation

http://www.dnatube.com/video/2649/Understanding-Evolution-by-Natural-Selection

or get a textbook (don't take offence, its how I learned nobody is born with this knowledge, it is all learned)

as I said, Campbell and Reece "Biology"

There is no short cut to understaning this and I assure Perry does not at all comprehend it.

MeanMrMustard

Perry,

Evolution is not random. It is an algorithm. The algorithm itself is surpisingly simple, and amazingly effective. It can be modeled quite easily:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp9kzoAxsA4

As far as "irreducibly complex" - don't overlook the fact that intermetiate steps can be introduced to help an "irreducibly complex" machine come about. The talkorigins.org archive has a good example. This is an irreducibly complex bridge. Take one piece away and the function fails. It doens't matter what piece you take away, the bridge will fail:

And here are the steps:

And finally:

MMM

confusedandalone

So many people are responding to Perry with scientific data and you all must understand it doesn't matter... you have too see this.

He is still a jw just with a new label. He is convinced nothing you day will change it till the current foundation he is on is shaken by some amazing miracle that forces him to chase another unicorn

Vidqun

Thanks Perry for this information. Excellent thread! To decipher code and to duplicate it, you have to reverse engineer the original program. And this is exactly what scientist are doing at the moment.

snare&racket

....here comes the cavalry.

Nobody in the real world is interested in these thoughts and opinions, they are fart in the star clouds.

That is earth in a sunbeam as taken by Voyager as it leaves our solar system....

This image makes us all humble, our insignificant significance. But if you are going to have a teeny weeny insignificant thought or spouting online, at least be up to date and in line with what we already know.

Go back to school, catch up and contribute. Anything else is ignored noise in a huge universe.

Vidqun

Oh, the irony of it all! Craig Venter, creator of synthetic life, indeed a title to be proud of. To have been able to do that, scientists had to reverse engineer the coding of existing life. The same goes for the Urey Miller experiment. "Even if you were to make a reactor in the laboratory, and put hydrogen and carbon dioxide and nitrogen in one end, and out pops something like Escherichia coli at the other end, you still couldn't prove that we and our ancestors arose that way. You'd just have a narrative that made it more plausible."

Even if above process could be duplicated in a lab, Dr. Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow would be the creator of a new E. coli. Take note, a creator is needed to create a basic organism. And Cofty’s arguments of things being systematically built up, piece by piece, do not hold water. Even simple organisms are very complex. And what I know of nature, things tend to break down. Atoms and molecules do not spontaneously form complicated proteins (even if you allow for millions of years to pass).

snare&racket

" Atoms and molecules do not spontaneously form complicated proteins"

Nobody said they did.

Miller may not impress you, but thankfully that is irrelevant to science. He proved it was possible, the best you have is "well, maybe it didnt happen like that" .....what an amazing insight...yawn..

"What i know of nature" ...no comment

"things tend to break down" ... This is a misunderstanding of thermodynamic laws, try again. We had to apply these equations to biology, in classes BEFORE university, showing how spontaneous formation can be the most energy efficient. Basic science,

As for creating synthetic life, this is the beginning of amazing cures, tratment, replacement and technology. Mock it in your ignorance all you wish, you have so far failed biology class one, dr craig ventnor was the first human to synthetically create life, what the hell have you or your miserable, backward, ignorant chums contributed to mankind or society? You are so closed and small minded you don't even see how embarassing your comments are!

electricity?merghhhh so what, just copying zeus and his lightning.....

Vidqun

S&R, I am not discrediting Miller, or Russel, or Venter. I think they are doing a fine work, demonstrating the need for a creator. Carry on with your insults. You might convince all of us yet. Whenever you are faced with a dilemma, that's where you go. You are actually doing us all a favor. Keep up the good work. As you might remember, we have been down this road already, and really, you don't scare me at all.

Who Made The Code?

Share this