I believe in Evolution and that God created life

by Crabby 154 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Vidqun

  In continuation of what I said before: A DNA machine is a molecular machine constructed from DNA. Research into DNA machines was pioneered in the late 1980s by Nadrian Seeman and co-workers from New York University. DNA is used because of the numerous biological tools already found in nature that can affect DNA, and the immense knowledge of how DNA works previously researched by biochemists.

  DNA machines can be logically designed since DNA assembly of the double helix is based on strict rules of base pairing that allow portions of the strand to be predictably connected based on their sequence. This 'selective stickiness' is a key advantage in the construction of DNA machines (Wiki).

  Man-made DNA sequencer: Man is also working on a DNA sequencer, still imperfect, but they are getting there.

  Because of limitations in DNA sequencer technology these reads are short compared to the length of a genome therefore the reads must be assembled into longer contigs. The data may also contain errors, caused by limitations in the DNA sequencing technique or by errors during PCR amplification. DNA sequencer manufacturers use a number of different methods to detect which DNA bases are present. The specific protocols applied in different sequencing platforms have an impact in the final data that is generated. Therefore, comparing data quality and cost across different technologies can be a daunting task. Each manufacturer provides their own ways to inform sequencing errors and scores. However, errors and scores between different platforms cannot always be compared directly. Since these systems rely on different DNA sequencing approaches, choosing the best DNA sequencer and method will typically depend on the experiment objectives and available budget (Wiki).

  
  

  Half banana, as you might have noticed, the chain of evidence, involving the laws of information and DNA, disproves the "scientific theorum" of evolution. An advanced information system, e.g., DNA, cannot spontaneously generate and improve on itself all the time. Impossible. What you are is in your DNA? Spontaneous mutations in your DNA are likely to kill you rather than improve you. So has evolution stood the test of time? Not really. What the alternative to evolution is, you'll have to decide for yourself.

  Take note: Evolution is a religion built on faith. E.g., the leading evolutionist of the 20th century is generally considered to be Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism. Huxley called evolution a "religion without revelation." I personally believe evolution is the most worthless religion of them all. It is based on a lie and teaches you nothing.
• 

  Vidqun

  Ah, Viv's back. Please Viv, if you have the time, go through the video, and let me know if you see logical flaws in the presentation, and what they are. There's no rush, so take your time. Thanks in anticipation.
• 

  Half banana

  Half banana, as you might have noticed, the chain of evidence, involving the laws of information and DNA, disproves the "scientific theorum" of evolution. An advanced information system, e.g., DNA, cannot spontaneously generate and improve on itself all the time. Impossible. What you are is in your DNA? Spontaneous mutations in your DNA are likely to kill you rather than improve you. So has evolution stood the test of time? Not really.

  Vidqun, this is an assemblage of non-sequiturs based on the idea that everyone else understands the laws of your private 'information' religion.
  
  
• 

  Caedes

  the chain of evidence, involving the laws of information and DNA, disproves the "scientific theorum" of evolution. An advanced information system, e.g., DNA, cannot spontaneously generate and improve on itself all the time. Impossible.

  So if a bacteria evolved to be able to 'eat' an entirely man made substance like nylon that would be impossible? Well, let's hope nobody finds a bacteria that has evolved that ability!
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria

  
  
  
  
• 

  Vidqun

  No Half banana, it's much simpler that that. Information science and technology are relatively new, I will grant you that. But let me explain "information" to you. I will use three examples: 1) Radio announcer (with information) > radio > listener. 2) Writer (with information) > book > library > reader. 2) Programmer (with information) > computer program > DVD or CD. So, what is information? Is it the radio, or book, or DVD? No, these are mere receptacles of information. The actual information is massless, intangible and an abstract construct of a mind. In each case, you have a sender (originator) of information and you have a receiver (or recipient) of information. Now the DNA/RNA system in the nucleus of a cell is an information system. It supplies information to construct an organism, plant or animal. The information over the radio, in the book and on the DVD had to be placed there by an intelligent mind. However, as was previously explained, the DNA/RNA information system is much more complex than the information in above examples. Conclusion: The laws of information, similar to above examples, demand an intelligent creator for DNA/RNA.
• 

  Vidqun

  Caedes, do not confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is necessary for survival. But in most cases it would pre-programmed. Some view spontaneous mutations as the cause. As mentioned, spontaneous mutations are very seldom beneficial. They kill rather than improve. Some Pseudomonas bacteria digest oil, so I am not surprised that some bacteria might lunch on nylon.
• 

  Caedes

  Caedes, do not confuse adaptation with evolution. Adaptation is necessary for survival. But in most cases it would pre-programmed. Some view spontaneous mutations as the cause. As mentioned, spontaneous mutations are very seldom beneficial. They kill rather than improve. Some Pseudomonas bacteria digest oil, so I am not surprised that some bacteria might lunch on nylon.

  Adaptation is evolution, Pre-programmed? Nylon didn't exist until 1935! Anyway you said earlier that it was impossible for DNA to 'improve on itself' and yet I have given you an example of a bacteria that has evolved a new ability.
  
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I believe in Evolution and that God created life

  @Crabby: Do you believe that God started life and left it to evolve on its own, or do you believe that God 'guides' evolution?
  
• 

  tiki

  After a course in marine biology I saw it as making sense. God makes one infinitesimal cell...gives it life...then says lets try again with a slight variation. And then a third...on and on.....and the second feeds on the first, the third feeds on the second, etc....and thus you have the food chain. Goes right down to reptiles, mammals...and ultimately the human being. Creation could very well have been an evolutionary process.
• 

  bohm

  Vidqun:

  Cofty, I wanted Viv to follow the reasoning, and point out flaws, if any. She's the expert, don't you know?
  In any case, here's a summary:
  Laws of information and information science are the following:
  1) Anything material such as physical/chemical processes cannot create something non-material. E.g., information.
  2) Information is a non-material fundamental entity and not a property of matter.
  3) Information requires a material medium for storage and transmission (E.g. books, CD, DVD, etc.).
  4) Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
  5) There can be no information without code.
  6) All codes result from an intentional choice and agreement between sender and recipient.
  7) The determination of meaning for and from a set of symbols is a mental process that requires intelligence.
  8) There can be no new information without an intelligent purposeful sender.
  9) Any give chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source (E.g. radio announcer, radio waves, radio).
  10) Information comprises the non-material foundation for all

  The problem with these "laws" of information is that when they use the word "information" it does not relate to any known definition. For instance, let's take Shanons definition of information (which is the most relevant one), in that definition a source of information *is* a statistical process and so "Information cannot originate in statistical processes." would seem to explicitly rule out Shannon information.

  In other words, the laws are not only unproven, what they reflect is what the author *wish* for information to be, without ever checking if those wishes relate to anything in the real world. It is no better then me speculating about how colors *ought* to behave and concluding optics is wrong because it describe colors in a way I don't like.