My dumbass parents doubt evolution

[The Grand Nudger]

Who cares if it is programmed, poor ole Lion here won't be able to demonstrate the he -isn''t-..and since this is the difference he'd like to claim....that's on him. Further, demonstrating that a monkey -is- programmed will be required to steal the poor thing's soul away (a soul so recently conferred..what a shame). We do complain about the "unpredictable" behavior of our brains and bodies all the time, another difference without any difference. Another categorical fail. What we have here, is one half of a poor argument. What is required..is less asserting and more demonstrating.

Doubling down on bullshit is inexcusable. It makes your job exponentially more difficult everytime you attempt it Lion.

[Aractus]

Are we talking about that self-replicating molecule, made up of four nitrogen-based nucleotides - guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine - and which looks like this:

---

?

---

I agree, we don't know what the hell that stuff is...

Um, DNA isn't self-replicating I don't know where you got that idea from...

---

I dont think you understood my *cough* ''argument''

Incorrect. You simply don't understand science well enough to use it effectively.

I tell you what, read my thought experiment here, which I believe disproves the currently accepted wave-particle duality model (my argument is not that matter doesn't behave as waves, but rather that it doesn't "change state" to become quantized particles when observed). See if you're able to follow it or not.

OK we can use a monkey versus gravity rather than a man versus gravity if you like. No biggie. Gravity cant and doesnt ''decide'' to pick up rocks.

Gravity doesn't decide to make protons, nuclei, electrons, molecules, gasses, liquids and solids either. Doesn't mean we can't use science to describe them

Are you claiming that monekys and rocks are both equally lacking in volition? That physics can predict the act of a monkey deciding to pick up a rock and throw it? Can the laws of physics predict which direction the monkey will throw the rock? How hard the monkey will throw it? Why the rock must be thrown at that exact point in time rather than 30 seconds earlier or 10 minutes later?

Straw man. Two different laws of physics tell you two different things, one doesn't affect the other.

Do you understand that the biggest hurdle standing in the way of a Unified Theory of Everything is the INABILITY of physics to predict everything that will necessarily happen? (No absolute time. No absolute relative position.)

Straw man. I don't believe in a unified theory of everything. BTW how do you imagine "absolute time" and "absolute relative position" anyway? That could only work in a purely linear universe...

The only certain principle is UNCERTAINTY.

You mean the "Uncertainty Principle"?

And you're gonna come in here and try to tell me that primate behaviour (pick up rock and throw it) is subject to predictable laws of physics?

The monkey is going to do it in a relatively specific way. He isn't going to bite it and pick it up with his teeth, for instance. I'd say that's called predictable behaviour. You take your pet cat and put it near water, you know with near certainty what it will do. The behaviour is predictable.

[Cyberman]

Um, DNA isn't self-replicating I don't know where you got that idea from...

No, you're quite right, my mistake. I was misled. Thanks for the correction, even though technically that's not what it was. Ok scrub that bit; what about the rest?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh ffs. We know what DNA is in the same way that we know what a telephone is..even though any given one of us may not know how DNA (or a telephone) works. How we would isolate and sequence something if we didn't know what it was? How would we separate DNA from other contaminants in the vial..like coca-cola, for example?

[Cyberman]

Ok, stand by studio: cue "It's a language!" in 5, 4, 3...

[Brakeman]

Are we talking about that self-replicating molecule, made up of four nitrogen-based nucleotides - guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine - and which looks like this:

---

?

---

I agree, we don't know what the hell that stuff is...

Um, DNA isn't self-replicating I don't know where you got that idea from...

That's a telling comment. Notice Daniel didn't say,"You know I was way off base there, I was wrong, although the DNA isn't normally self replicating." No, he, like the other theists on the board, pick a minuscule unimportant tidbit to respond to and try to deflect the conversation about something they don't wish to face or answer. It's poor character to carry on a discussion this way.

I challenge you theists to avoid this needless "dodging" of every idea that causes a problem with your world view.

[The Grand Nudger]

Good luck with that Brake.

[Aractus]

---

No one knows exactly what DNA is, by the way,

---

WTH! Of course we know what DNA is. Have you been reading 40 year old textbooks or something? What a silly comment!

---

That's a telling comment. Notice Daniel didn't say,"You know I was way off base there, I was wrong, although the DNA isn't normally self replicating." No, he, like the other theists on the board, pick a minuscule unimportant tidbit to respond to and try to deflect the conversation about something they don't wish to face or answer. It's poor character to carry on a discussion this way.

I challenge you theists to avoid this needless "dodging" of every idea that causes a problem with your world view.

---

Brakeman, we know what DNA is in the sense that we know it is a double-helix containing nucleotides. We know that human DNA chromosomes are about 2 inches long. We know this, we know that, blah blah blah. Nobody knows the exact relationship between DNA and creature. Is DNA a code for a program, or is DNA the program? There is a level of undeniable convergence that is as yet unexplained - how can species have such diverse DNA and still be "the same"; how can different species have very similar DNA and yet be totally different to each other. Why do individual creatures with exactly the same DNA have the ability to develop into totally different creatures to each other (this last point is explained by the fact that external forces work to guide and alter the development of the individual, but yet it goes to show how DNA is not the "strict" design plan that some such as dawkins imagine it to be). Dawkins idea of selfish gene is totally moot when we consider that so many genes are there "just in case" and only get used in the creature's development "sometimes". Hundreds of generations may go by without ever referencing a specific gene, until the environment changes and puts it into action.

This throws a spanner into the popularized theories regarding how DNA and evolution are related to each other. Is DNA really just a "coded index"? If it is, then how is it that sections can be "arbitrarily" skipped in certain generations only to be reused in others, and so on. DNA is far too versatile for the confinement as being defined as a "code". As it is, really, no one knows specifically what DNA is. Yes we know a great deal about what it does, and what it is capable of doing, but we don't know how it works, we don't know why it works, we don't know if it's more accurate to call it a coded index or a program, we know that you can't possibly design a creature from DNA, and yet it still remains fundamental to the "design" of the creature.

DNA is not the only genetic material you know. It is totally dependant on the proteins that decide how and what to use in the embryo as development starts. You put a different protein in there, and suddenly it is no longer a rat fetus developing, but something else. So really, is it genetic information? Or is it the result of genetic information? If it really is genetic information, why does amphibian DNA (on average) contain so many more bases than mammal DNA? If it is "information" shouldn't it follow that amphibians are more genetically sophisticated creatures than mammals? Frogs contain more DNA than humans. The human brain's neural network is far too complicated to be described by our DNA, yet it exists nonetheless.

If you're so smart why don't you tell the class what DNA is, and while you're at it explain where the inherent "design" of the creature is found. You do that and you’ll get my vote for a Nobel Prize.

PS: What is it about my worldview do you think that is problematic (in conflict) with science???

[Brakeman]

Brakeman, we know what DNA is in the sense that we know it is a double-helix containing nucleotides. We know that human DNA chromosomes are about 2 inches long. We know this, we know that, blah blah blah. Nobody knows the exact relationship between DNA and creature. Is DNA a code for a program, or is DNA the program? There is a level of undeniable convergence that is as yet unexplained - how can species have such diverse DNA and still be "the same"; how can different species have very similar DNA and yet be totally different to each other. Why do individual creatures with exactly the same DNA have the ability to develop into totally different creatures to each other (this last point is explained by the fact that external forces work to guide and alter the development of the individual, but yet it goes to show how DNA is not the "strict" design plan that some such as dawkins imagine it to be). Dawkins idea of selfish gene is totally moot when we consider that so many genes are there "just in case" and only get used in the creature's development "sometimes". Hundreds of generations may go by without ever referencing a specific gene, until the environment changes and puts it into action.

The "40 year old text books" still applies, but maybe updated to 20 year old text books. Your questions have been answered, you are just not up to date.

Short of starting a biology class here, I'll point you to some very good videos that explain this with good visual mechanics.

http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/vid_cou...me=Biology

http://www.cassiopeiaproject.com/ViewCli...me=Biology

Evolution Videos