Jerry Bergman

Joined

• started 19 topics
• posted 279 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by Jerry Bergman

• 
  40

  Abiogenesis

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.

  1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?

  the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  From what I've seen Dr. Bergman doesn't reach conclusions when it comes to the origins of life. He begins with the conclusion that the Genesis account is correct and then interprets the data based on that belief. What makes you conclude this?? Actually, I started from the oppose conclusion
• 
  40

  Abiogenesis

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.

  1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?

  the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  He has a real Ph.D. in evaluation and research from Wayne State University, and a fake one in human biology from Columbia Pacific University. This is a lie and slander, and you know it. My degree is fully legal and there are hundreds or more teachers that have a degree from this school teaching now in USA and other countries, including at major universities. This response confirms my experience about atheists. They lack morals, honesty, compassion and often a sense of humanity.
• 
  40

  Abiogenesis

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.

  1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?

  the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  How did we go from technical questions concerning the origin of life to an attack on the "presupposition" of the existence of God? Oh well, have a few comments I would like to make...

  A presuppostional stance on the preexistence or perpetual existence of god with no proof being provided as to how god came into existence or was perpetually existing is just not worth arguing with. It's the old invisible pink unicorn argument, and I have better things to do with my time.

  This is a non argument. One has to assume the non existence of God just as much as one has to assume the existence of God. If one assumes that it is safe to ignore the possibility of the existence of God, then one has to assume the existence of something else totally beyond our experience.

  If I'm going to discuss abiogenesis, then people advancing the theory of god as an alternative have to provide theories of how god came into being, otherwise they are arguing in favor of invisible pink unicorns whilst expecting absolute definitive scientific proof of theories still in development in return.

  The "invisible Pink Unicorn" argument doesn't apply to the argument for a (Divine) intelligently designed origin of life in a number of ways, and on the contrary, Dr. Joe has shown with his blue fairy argument that it does apply to the theory of the origin of life by pure chance. For one thing, even invisible pink Unicorns would have to have some physical existence in our universe, while God is a supernatural Spirit. Probably the biggest problem with this ridiculous comparison is that in all our experience, truly complex, organized phenomena always originate (not counting copies of preexisting forms) through an adequate degree of applied intelligence. Even if there had never been religious concepts of God, this universal observation would suggest the existence of some intelligence greater than ours.

  The reason I say this is that I believe that at this moment initial origins ARE unprovable, and that any closure in the god/not god (god as in Christian Creator Bible God who did it like in Genesis) debate can only come about through time.

  If there is not yet "closure" in the debate about the existence of God, then isn't it unreasonable to refuse to consider arguments in favor of one side but not of the other?

  I feel, given the evidence NOW, and the historical evidence we have, that the theory of god is far less credible than the theory of a naturalistic origin.

  Based on what evidence? Didn't the answers to those questions indicate that there's nothing that we know of to support the idea that unguided chemicals can join together in an organized way to produce the complexity needed for life? What "historical evidence" do we have for the origin of life?
• 
  40

  Abiogenesis

  by Jerry Bergman in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows.

  1. what is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of dna or rna needed for a self-reproducing organism?

  the lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 dna base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see clark and russell molecular biology 2000).

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Some off the top of my head responses (with help from a friend) to a set of questions from another topic site are as follows. DNA/RNA

  1. What is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of DNA or RNA needed for a self-reproducing organism? The lower limit for a living non virus is usually considered around 4,000 genes or about 400,000 DNA base pairs (bacteria genes are about 1,000 base pairs long - see Clark and Russell Molecular Biology 2000). Others feel the number is lower. According to some scientists at UNC, "[t]he minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory is somewhere between 265 and 350." See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm
  Time will tell. For humans the DNA from an average person will stretch to the sun and back 600 times. A reason why a difference in opinion exists about the minimum number of genes required for a living organism is because the larger figure represents the actual number of genes known in free-living organisms, and the smaller figures represents an estimate based largely on a parasitic organism and the assumption by evolutionists that the environment in the early earth that supposedly produced the first living thing would also be chemically supportive of it. They assume that some specialized micro environment existed that was filled with amino acids, possibly proteins, lipids, and who knows what all, forming a sort of inorganic womb that would nurture the primitive life form it had just produced. Of course DNA is only the software and without the hardware (the scores of proteins that allow translation and transcription such as polymerase the system is useless.

  2. How long of polymers (nucleotide length) of DNA or RNA have been formed in labs under realistic conditions? How close is this to the answer to question # 1. By "machine" I am not aware of any known limit, but this procedure is human designed so it is only of indirect interest.

  3. Will a forming polymer tend to lengthen or break apart under naturalistic conditions? It will break apart and this is why repair enzymes are critical. otherwise it would not last long even in the cell.

  4. Do all the sugars in DNA and RNA have to be either "right handed (D)" or "left handed (L)" or will a combination of both in the same molecule lead to functional nucleic acids? The sugars have to match the whole system, especially the enzyme system that makes them. As far as I know all of the sugar backbones of RNA and DNA are only D isomers. Optical activity purity is biologically necessary for proper coiling for both amino acids and also for the sugars.I understand that getting the right kinds of sugars is statistically vastly more difficult than optically pure amino acids.
  
  
  
  

  5. If only one type of sugar (D or L) will work, how could long polymers of DNA/RNA form from a 50/50 mixture? Has there been any naturalistic condition found which could separate the two out, leading to polymers of only 1 type being formed? Polymers could form but they would not be functional. I would think that they would be sticky like candy
• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Some off the top of my head responses (I could not find the new site). DNA/RNA

  1. What is the estimated minimum nucleotide length of DNA or RNA needed for a self-reproducing organism? The lower limit for a non virus is usually considered about 4,000 genes or about 400,000 DNA base pairs. Others feel the number is lower. According to some scientists at UNC, "[t]he minimum number of protein-producing genes a single-celled organism needs to survive and reproduce in the laboratory is somewhere between 265 and 350." See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/12/991213052506.htm
  Time will tell. For humans the DNA from an average person will stretch to the sun and back 600 times.

  2. How long of polymers (nucleotide length) of DNA or RNA have been formed in labs under realistic conditions? How close is this to the answer to question # 1. By "machine" I am not aware of any known limit, but this procedure is human designed so it is only of indirect interest.

  3. Will a forming polymer tend to lengthen or break apart under naturalistic conditions? It will break apart and this is why repair enzymes are critical. otherwise it would not last long even in the cell.

  4. Do all the sugars in DNA and RNA have to be either "right handed (D)" or "left handed (L)" or will a combination of both in the same molecule lead to functional nucleic acids? The sugars have to match the whole system, especially the enzyme system that makes them. As far as I know all of the sugar backbones of RNA and DNA are only D isomers. Optical activity purity is biologically necessary for proper coiling for both amino acids and also for the sugars.I understand that getting the right kinds of sugars is statistically vastly more difficult than optically pure amino acids.
  
  
  
  

  5. If only one type of sugar (D or L) will work, how could long polymers of DNA/RNA form from a 50/50 mixture? Has there been any naturalistic condition found which could separate the two out, leading to polymers of only 1 type being formed? Polymers could form but they would not be functional. I would think that they would be stickey like candy
• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Hooberus

  Well put and I agree fully.
• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  In response to the above, let us get off attacking persons and look at the evidence. How do you explain the origin of the genome? How do you get a functional cell from a set of chemicals? Also, I assume that my offer above was rejected.
• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Hooberus You mean :Maybe the dodo situation is an example of some form of artificial selection, but can it be extrapolated to prove the origin of the dodo itself ? My responce is no.
• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  Thanks for the clarification. I see my statement was not as clear as it should be.

  I said "Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind and it would be clearer to state as follows:

  Now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the common dodo evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.

  Again thanks for the clarification. I need to check my revised version to see if the same ambiguity is present, and clarify it as well (this is why it is critical to have critics read your papers). This is also a problem creationists have. Our critics are glad to review and critique our papers, but only after we publish. The review should be before we publish, not after.
• 
  69

  Maybe I'm missing something about this particular Creationist's arguement..

  by Abaddon in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  here we have an article about the dodo by dr. jerry bergman;.

  http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1172.asp.

  it discusses the reasons for the dodoes extinction and concludes;now that the bird has been extensively studied, we realize that the facts do not support the evolutionary myth, but do support the moral bankruptcy of humankind.. .

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  Jerry Bergman

  100 quarter hours (equal to amount of course work needed for a Ph.D.) is not 25 hours but 3 to 4 years full time study.