DepricatedZero
New Member
Could you get me a copy of the compiler for this code? I'm really, very interested in learning to write in it.Japhia888 said:
-
Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
Donations can be made via here
Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God
- Thread starter Japhia888
- Start date
- Status
monitoradiation
New Member
DeusExNihilum said:
+1
What is Genetic Information?
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/CSR4-95Mills.html
For those not familiar with modem biochemistry or molecular biology, one may most readily explain genetic information by considering the analogy to human language. In the English language we use twenty-six letters, and if we neglect the spaces and punctuation marks we may combine these letters to make words of varying length. The words may be combined into sentences, the sentences into paragraphs, etc. However, only specific sequences of letters, words, sentences, etc. provide meaning. One does not obtain meaningful sentences from random sequences of letters. Similarly, for genetic information in protein molecules twenty different amino acids are linked together end-to-end in specific sequences. Smaller proteins may be made up of chains of possibly one hundred amino acids, while larger proteins may have up to one thousand amino acids in the linear chain. Again, however, the proteins must have specific sequences of amino acids to be functional. Random sequences are nonsense (i.e., they are not functional).13 However, in living organisms the sequence of amino acids in proteins is always determined by the genetic information residing in DNA. DNA is made up of linear polymers of four different nucleotides arranged in specific sequences. The variety of possible arrangements of these nucleotides provides DNA with a tremendous capacity for storage of information. The nucleotides contain one of four purine or pyrimidine bases, adenine or guanine, and cytosine or thymine. For coding regions of DNA, these bases are arranged into groups of three (triplet codes or codons), with each codon providing information for a particular amino acid. Consequently, the sequence of codons in a coding region of DNA determines the sequence of amino acids in a protein molecule.14 DNA also has additional genetic information providing for specific sequences of nucleotides in transfer RNA and in ribosomal RNA; also it has other sequences of bases that provide for coordinated control of all protein and RNA production. It must be emphasized again, however, that random sequences of DNA are nonsense.
Gitt discusses five levels of information and provides fourteen theorems or empirical principles related to information theory. In his concept of information, several principles are of special importance to the present paper: "No information chain can exist without a mental origin. . . No information can exist without an initial mental source. . .No information can exist without a will" (p. 7). This brings me to the fundamental question that I have posed: What is the source of new genetic information? Since living organisms have a tremendous amount of genetic information stored in their DNA, it seems that one must logically pose an intelligent cause as the ultimate source of that information.
I have noted previously that the probability of obtaining by chance the specific sequence of amino acids in a functional protein was extremely small (2 x 10-65 for cytochrome c). Yet, many hundreds of protein molecules are required for the simplest living bacterial cell. The tremendous complexity of eukaryotic cells is indicated in the following statement from a recent review: " Animal cells must express over 100,000 genes in a temporally and spatially controlled fashion during cellular differentiation and development."
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Evolution/CSR4-95Mills.html
For those not familiar with modem biochemistry or molecular biology, one may most readily explain genetic information by considering the analogy to human language. In the English language we use twenty-six letters, and if we neglect the spaces and punctuation marks we may combine these letters to make words of varying length. The words may be combined into sentences, the sentences into paragraphs, etc. However, only specific sequences of letters, words, sentences, etc. provide meaning. One does not obtain meaningful sentences from random sequences of letters. Similarly, for genetic information in protein molecules twenty different amino acids are linked together end-to-end in specific sequences. Smaller proteins may be made up of chains of possibly one hundred amino acids, while larger proteins may have up to one thousand amino acids in the linear chain. Again, however, the proteins must have specific sequences of amino acids to be functional. Random sequences are nonsense (i.e., they are not functional).13 However, in living organisms the sequence of amino acids in proteins is always determined by the genetic information residing in DNA. DNA is made up of linear polymers of four different nucleotides arranged in specific sequences. The variety of possible arrangements of these nucleotides provides DNA with a tremendous capacity for storage of information. The nucleotides contain one of four purine or pyrimidine bases, adenine or guanine, and cytosine or thymine. For coding regions of DNA, these bases are arranged into groups of three (triplet codes or codons), with each codon providing information for a particular amino acid. Consequently, the sequence of codons in a coding region of DNA determines the sequence of amino acids in a protein molecule.14 DNA also has additional genetic information providing for specific sequences of nucleotides in transfer RNA and in ribosomal RNA; also it has other sequences of bases that provide for coordinated control of all protein and RNA production. It must be emphasized again, however, that random sequences of DNA are nonsense.
Gitt discusses five levels of information and provides fourteen theorems or empirical principles related to information theory. In his concept of information, several principles are of special importance to the present paper: "No information chain can exist without a mental origin. . . No information can exist without an initial mental source. . .No information can exist without a will" (p. 7). This brings me to the fundamental question that I have posed: What is the source of new genetic information? Since living organisms have a tremendous amount of genetic information stored in their DNA, it seems that one must logically pose an intelligent cause as the ultimate source of that information.
I have noted previously that the probability of obtaining by chance the specific sequence of amino acids in a functional protein was extremely small (2 x 10-65 for cytochrome c). Yet, many hundreds of protein molecules are required for the simplest living bacterial cell. The tremendous complexity of eukaryotic cells is indicated in the following statement from a recent review: " Animal cells must express over 100,000 genes in a temporally and spatially controlled fashion during cellular differentiation and development."
Anachronous Rex
New Member
Japhia, in all seriousness, you would be enormously more compelling if you wouldn't only reference sources with a clear bias.
borrofburi
New Member
More copy pasta? More failure to answer questions? More failure to address posts you find inconvenient?Japhia888 said:
Given that invoking God means the use of miracles, and that means that the probability of any miraculous event happening is zero (because it defies the material world otherwise it wouldn't be a miracle), wouldn't any explanation at all that does not involve miracles be a better explanation then God?
Japhia888 said:
We know what DNA is, but you have failed to answer whether all of NonCoding DNA is a code.
You've also failed to answer whether you understand that DNA can randomly (form) polymerize in nature and whether you think that is a code too?
Unless anyone has any objections I'm thinking this thread has run it's course. I tend to think religious BS is best out in the open where it can be shown for the idiocy it is, 32 pages seems sufficient.
If there is enough call for it then we can keep it going.
If there is enough call for it then we can keep it going.
Story said:
sorry to all, but i am travelling, and i cannot dedicate more time to answer all questions for now.
http://www.icr.org/article/chemistry-by-chance-formula-for-non-life/
all of the amino acids have relatively similar structures, and, therefore, they all have similar reaction rates. The same holds true for the polymerization of nucleotides to form DNA/RNA. The problem is that since all of the amino acids or nucleotide components would react at about the same rate, all proteins and all DNA/RNA would have a polymeric sequence different than that observed in our bodies. The product of natural or random reactions could never provide the precise sequences found in proteins and DNA/RNA.
Japhia888 said:IBSpify said:
the biggest miracle would be creation " ex nihilo " without a creator.
Who is saying that the universe is was created "ex nihilo"? This is one of the strange arguments that i hear theists give, I have never heard an atheist claim that the universe came from a literal nothing.
In fact that is your belief, that a being which has always been there created everything out of nothing, My personal belief cuts out the middle man because i think the universe always existed in one form or another.
Japhia888 said:IBSpify said:
the biggest miracle would be creation " ex nihilo " without a creator.
It can be observed that you and I exist. However, whether we know that there is a creator that actually made all of us is still not sure. The only recourse we have is to hypothesize with the existing facts at hand. If only we can roll back the clock or observe that it actually happened, then we can be certain if there really was a creator or it all happened by chance or by some other reason.
Till, then if you define such as a miracle, then it already happened, because we are here. Now, only if you could provide a proof for god, then maybe you'd be given credibility.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Let's skip all the bullshit, shall we? Here's a better explanation than "God did it":
I DID IT!
There. That makes more sense than "God did it", for the simple reason that I actually exist, you can check for yourself by giving me a call or stopping by with a six-pack of beer.
I DID IT!
There. That makes more sense than "God did it", for the simple reason that I actually exist, you can check for yourself by giving me a call or stopping by with a six-pack of beer.
ImprobableJoe
New Member
Let's start with the beer, OK? I'm a fan of IPAs and Belgian Witbier.lrkun said:
TheFlyingBastard
New Member
Hi, Japhia.Japhia888 said:
Where in the process of chemical transcription is the literal code, Japhia?
Why do you continuously post from sources that have been proven to be wrong or lying, Japhia?
Why can't you count back from now into infinity, Japhia?
Why are you ignoring that people have given you a better explanation than God, Japhia?
Why do you believe that the universe runs purely on chance, Japhia?
Why do you run away when you are confronted with your fallacies, Japhia?
Why aren't you answering these questions, Japhia?
- Status