Ladies and gentleman, Kent Hovid's alma mater: Patriot Bible University!
I held off on this DNA trip until I had the dumb s here out in the middle of the lake, now I'm going to drown them, hahahaaha!!!!!!!
Only a grade A idiot would dare and try...."DNA just came about by chance". Not one of you here can give me any real explanation as to how something this complex is happening by chance and you know it.
this video tells us nothing except "dna is complex"
big whoop.
Avante are you a believer in the bible? you are posting many biblical sources, such as youtube videos from a link called "kingjamesbible"
I'm sure there's a DNA lab in there somewhere!
the only thing i'd be drowning in is the sheer number of links you are spamming into this thread
Do you want me to send you to a ton of videos/sites with strict scientists talking about DNA?
My beliefs are that there was some Master Designer, since I like you and everyone else has no clue what that might be I'm stuck with what's available. I have no problem going with God, just don't try and sell the Bible stories to me.
Bottom line is only a fool would think DNA and all this just came about by chance, that is ridiculous.
So you don't need ANY proof to back up your claim, but anyone thinking differently needs to provide complete and unassailable proof?
lol that's debate Patriot Bible University style!
you have the same flaw as that one guy in one of the 30 links you posted...
"i dont think there is enough evidence so support theory A, therefore the correct answer must the theory B, even though that one actually has even less evidence than theory A"
Old got spamming, circlejerking and deflecting all questions per par....
So you honestly believe something as totally complex as DNA just happened? Dude, are you serious? The distance the earth is from the sun, the seasons, the rotationof the earth al just came about by chance......you really believe that?
Wow~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ladies and gentleman, Kent Hovid's alma mater: Patriot Bible University!
Bull ! Why not get it right for once ya dumb .
Does anyone here have a clue what DNA is? How could anything this complex not have a design?
the funny thing is unless you googled it right now, you wouldn't even be able to name the 4 nucleotide bases found in DNA, even just the letter abbreviations
your entire understanding of DNA is just "its very complex"
Friday, August 12, 2011
DNA is far too complex to have just randomly happened - overcoming Darwinist ignorance
It is unwise to always publish long posts for there are many folks who cannot digest so much so fast. So you get a nice, short one today. Most of the technical journals I get do not release the majority of their articles for at least three years, so this article is pretty new to the internet but is actually not "new" per se, just well-written and to the point.
Astonishing DNA complexity update
by Alex Williams
Image istockphoto.com
Recently we reported astonishing new discoveries about the complexity of the information content stored in the DNA molecule.1 Notably, the 97% of the human DNA that does not code for protein is not leftover ‘junk DNA’ from our evolutionary past, as previously thought, but is virtually all being actively used right now in our cells.
Here are a few more exciting details from the ENCODE (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) pilot project report.2 As a help in understanding this, DNA is a very stable molecule ideal for storing information. In contrast, RNA is a very active (and unstable) molecule and does lots of work in our cells. To use the stored information on our DNA, our cells copy the information onto RNA transcripts that then do the work as instructed by that information.
- Traditional ‘beads-on-a-string’ type genes do form the basis of the protein-producing code, even though much greater complexity has now been uncovered. Genes found in the ENCODE project differ only about 2% from the existing catalogue of known protein-coding genes.
- We reported previously that the transcripts overlap the gene regions, but the overlaps are huge compared to the size of the genes. On average, the transcripts are 10 to 50 times the size of the gene region, overlapping on both sides. And as many as 20% of transcripts range up to more than 100 times the size of the gene region. This would be like photocopying a page in a book and having to get information from 10, 50 or even 100 other pages in order to use the information on that page.that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes
- The untranslated regions (now called UTRs, rather than ‘junk’) are far more important than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.
- Transcription activity can best be predicted by just one factor, the way that the DNA is packaged into chromosomes. The DNA is coiled around protein globules called histones, then coiled again into a rope-like structure, then super-coiled in two stages around scaffold proteins to produce the thick chromosomes that we see under the microscope. This suggests that DNA information normally exists in a form similar to a closed book—all the coiling prevents the coded information from coming into contact with the translation machinery. When the cell wants some information it opens a particular page, ‘photocopies’ the information, then closes the book again. Recent other work3 shows that this is physically accomplished as follows:
- The chromosomes in each cell are stored in the membrane-bound nucleus. The nuclear membrane has about 2000 pores in it, through which molecules can be passed in and out. The required chromosome is brought near to one of these nuclear pores.
- The section of DNA to be transcribed is placed in front of the pore.
- The supercoil is unwound to expose the transcription region.
- The histone coils are twisted so as to expose the required copying site.
- The double-helix of the DNA is unzipped to expose the coded information.
- The DNA is grasped into a loop by the enzymes that do the copying, and this loop is copied onto an RNA transcript. The transcript is then checked for accuracy (and is degraded and recycled if it is faulty). The RNA transcript is then specially tagged for export, and is exported through the pore and carried to wherever it is needed in the cell.
- The ‘book’ of DNA information is then closed by a reversal of the coiling process and movement of the chromosome away from the nuclear pore region.
- The most surprising result, according to the ENCODE authors, is that 95% of the functional transcripts (genic and UTR transcripts with at least one known function) show no sign of selection pressure (i.e. they are not noticeably conserved and are mutating at the average rate). This contradicts Charles Darwin’s theory that natural selection is the major cause of our evolution. It also creates an interesting paradox: cell architecture, machinery and metabolic cycles are all highly conserved (e.g. the human insulin gene has been put into bacteria to produce human insulin on an industrial scale), while most of the chromosomal information is freely mutating. How could this state of affairs be maintained for the supposed 3.8 billion years since bacteria first evolved? A better answer might be that life is only thousands, not billions of years old. It also looks like cells, not genes, are in control of life—the direct opposite of what neo-Darwinists have long assumed.
DNA is not very complex as bio molecules go.
Proteins, especially those with carbohydrate attached like on cell surfaces, are much more complex from a biochemists point of view.
Your whole argument is analogous to going out on a beach, picking up one grain of sand, and then exclaiming what a miracle it was that you just happened to pick up that grain of sand. It's ignorant and simplistic.
And you really have no idea what you posted above really means.
You and I both know this.
What we both actually know is that there is a reason we can't have DNA wiithout a designer. The complexity of it alone tells us that. So you disagree with what science is proving, not speculating....but proving.
Do you even understand DNA?
But Christmas and Easter?
Think of the kids!
How likely is it that DNA was created by nature?
In other words, what is the (mathematical) probability that given the timescale and world conditions at that time (approx 4 billion years ago) that nature could have come up with (or evolved) a structure like DNA.
Given that DNA is a complex molecule that has a very elegant system for holding digital information and a very reliable system to copy itself, with seemingly just the right amount of mutation to help evolution. Can we show that it might have happened within the timescales available or does in look like that it would be extremely unlikely?
Another thing that puzzles me is that DNA is a digital information system. When we look at many naturally occurring systems they tend to work in an analogue fashion. What are the probabilities of other types of systems occurring, such as for example, a potential differences caused by different concentrations of molecules used as a basis for information storage?
LUCA - understood to be all life's universal ancestor - a single cell about 3.5 billion years ago (I think). This does not leave a great deal of time to have evolved DNA from when the earth could have had the conditions to allow this. And, presumably DNA would have needed to have been around for quite some time before it managed to evolve LUCA.
Are there any (computer) models that identify these probability issues, what work has been done on this - anyone know? By the way this is a layman's question - I am not a geneticist!
Who can answer this?
yes I do...
And I can point at all the flaws in what you posted above but you would not understand the explanations for one basic reason, you don't have a clue as to what you have posted.
Next.
You wanna try me little fella?
RNA is favored over DNA as being the ?first self replicating molecule, so the timing involved in the entire bull above is most likely flawed.
Why is RNA favored over DNA.?
Why does it make so much more sense, please point to the experiments that give credence to RNA and explain why RNA is favored.
You really should avoid the deep end of the pool when you can't swim.
Yes, of course we want to try you. We've been asking you to discuss anything in your own words for months, dummy.
We're still waiting.
This isn't about RNA vs DNA....obviously. This is about could something with the complexities involved such as DNA have just come about without a master design? You ignore what is being talked about with a question?
Do you think DNA just happened by chance, that's what is being talked about here...ok?
you misunderstood the scope of his entire post. misunderstanding science is becoming a common theme from your posts
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
