Posted on 12/18/2007 11:11:23 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
No you don't.
==I think GOD created the universe to be governed by natural law, and set up a system of forces and particles that made the creation of stars and planets and the evolution of life inevitable
Sounds like a deistic statement of faith in evolution.
==I.D.; which I call ‘Incompetent Design’ posits that the mechanism of mutation and natural selection that is a inherent feature of the life that HE created is somehow insufficient
There you go again, placing your faith in Darwin.
==So your really saying that either I believe what you believe about a 6,000 year old universe, or an Incompetent Designer or I am not in the community of faith or among the saved?
Can you read, Allmendream? I said no such thing. And btw, it is you who have downgraded God to the level of incompetent designer.
==“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.”—St. Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas was not referring to Creation Scientists. There are thousands of scientists gifted with the necessary scientific learning, and with credentials far superior than your own, who all maintain that random mutation plus natural selection is insufficient to explain the complexity of life...and is therefor falsified.
Surely that is a fictional title?
(I hope...otherwise it is like what P.J. O'Rourke said about hunting dairy cows with a high-powered rifle and scope.)
Cheers!
...oh, and Merry Christmas.
==Textbooks? Please, once again you show just how abjectly ignorant of Science you are. There are very few textbooks in graduate Biology work.
Dearest Allmendream, several of my friends are scientists, with credentials you can only dream of. Indeed, one of them went through the PhD program at UC Berkeley in molecular and cell biology on a full-ride scholarship. And unlike you, he didn’t drop out. BTW, his work in the field of epigenetics convinced him that Darwinism is insufficient to explain the complexity of life. While at Berzerkeley, he even sent me a book by Soren Lovtrop entitled “Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth.” Have you read it? Trust me, it would do you good.
==By that rather shoddy definition there is little as far as a mechanism of Biological control that wouldn’t be a ‘code’. But underlying it all is the actual code in which a triplet codon specifies an amino acid.
You’re starting to catch on. Unfortunately, you are still trapped in your dusty biology textbooks. I’m not worried, you’ll come around in a decade or so.
PS When my friend went to Berkeley he was a committed atheist. When he left he was a committed theist. Go figure.
Too much LDS?
==Too much LDS?
I assume you meant LSD. Can’t you get anything right, Wiley? But to answer your snide question, science convinced him Charlie was full of it.
I assume you meant LSD. Can’t you get anything right, Wiley? But to answer your snide question, science convinced him Charlie was full of it.
No, I meant LDS. It is a movie reference. If you weren't such a humorless ass, or were more rounded in your education, you would have realized it was not a typo.
And the reference in the movie was to Berkeley as well.
And I didn’t ‘drop out’; I got a Masters Degree. When you get an undergraduate degree, then go on to graduate school and defend your thesis you can join me in a good laugh about how we ‘dropped out’. Getting my Masters was a good financial decision at the time considering the glut of Molecular Biologist Phd’s, and the time needed to finish and then a few years earning ‘post-doc’ wages. I am not waving my credentials around, you are, and I am proud of my degree. If you ever received one I am sure you would be proud of it as well, maybe one of your friends can mail you one.
No. I do archaeology, and we use the latest scientific tools and apply them to the study of the past. We use the scientific method, as do many of the "historical" or "forensic" sciences -- and that is what makes it science.
Ahem. I think it was you who just appealed to authority. LOL
==I have made reference to the data, there is no ‘code upon code’, it is a mechanism to turn on or off different genes
Ok, since you are making reference to the data, what controls the mechanism to turn genes on or off?
==When you get an undergraduate degree, then go on to graduate school and defend your thesis you can join me in a good laugh about how we ‘dropped out’.
I did. I have never entered a program that I didn’t finish, unlike you.
==Getting my Masters was a good financial decision at the time considering the glut of Molecular Biologist Phd’s, and the time needed to finish and then a few years earning ‘post-doc’ wages.
But now you will be forever be outgunned in the creation/evolution debate. Us Creationists will always be able to go over your head. Very bad decision.
==I am not waving my credentials around, you are, and I am proud of my degree.
You should be. And when you finally find it within yourself to stop disparaging Creation Scientists who did just as much as you and more to get their degrees, I will be proud right along with you.
==I do archaeology, and we use the latest scientific tools and apply them to the study of the past.
Let me rephrase. Are you a paid to be a full time archeologist, or do you do it on the side?
Full time, for over 30 years. Much of my time is in research and writing--I have a staff for the dirty work.
What controls the mechanism to turn genes on or off? Well there are numerous levels of control as I have said all along. First a transcription factor has to be turned on in some circumstances (other genes transcription factors are always on)sometimes they turn on or off in response to an external signal. This transcription factor has an amino acid sequence that will bind to a specific DNA sequence in the ‘promoter’ region of the gene. Once bound to the promoter of the gene the transcription factor will recruit RNA polymerase. RNA polymerase is the STAR of this Thread! Unfortunately he got billed under TRANSLATION when he does TRANSCRIPTION. RNA polymerase has phosphorylation sites that control which transcription factors it might interact with preferentially and THIS is a COOL discovery! (but it isn’t a new code and it isn’t translation). RNA polymerase makes an mRNA transcript of the gene that then gets spliced into a message and taken to where it needs to get TRANSLATED by use of the 5’ leading edge of the mRNA. The mRNA gets translated into a protein at the ribosome, it has a sequence that initiates this ribosomal binding and some are stronger than others. Once the protein gets made sometimes it binds to the transcription factor that turned the gene on and then turns it off by inactivating its own transcription factor (negative regulation). Sometimes a protein is made and held inactive by another protein and it doesn’t actually do its job until something signals its parter to let go and then it becomes active. Sometimes the body makes a protein and then immediately destroys it because it isn’t needed (but when it is needed, it is too late to signal the DNA to make RNA to make protein, you need the protein NOW!). Those are all levels of control that someone could claim was a ‘code within a code’ or a ‘code upon a code’ but really there is just one code and many many multiple levels of control.
So what was your thesis on?
As is so often the case, for both you in particular and the anti-science folks in general, you "recall" very incorrectly.
Gosh, it sure is amazing how almost every science-denying ranter here on FreeRepublic invariably has a friend/Uncle/dog who a) has "credentials you can only dream of" in exactly the field of science which the ranter currently finds himself at a disadvantage discussing, and b) after mastering that subject with a PhD (at the very least) with flying colors (or "on a full-ride scholarship"), etc., the friend/Uncle/goldfish just happens to have arrived at an expert opinion which flatly contradicts that of 99% of his scientific colleagues but just happens to fully vindicate everything the ranter has been trying to claim in his attacks on conventional science.
It's almost as amazing as the fact that these expert friends/Uncles/parakeets PhDs never manage to drop in for even a moment to grace us with their knowledge and demonstrate that they're not just a desperate bluff on the part of a science-denier who finds himself losing ground in an argument on a subject in which he's way out of his depth.
If I didn't know any better -- if it wasn't for the well known fact that anti-evolution folks never ever ever tell enormous whoppers without a hint of shame -- I might almost think that they were just making this stuff up.
Finally, if GGG was trying to impress anyone by using the phrase "full-ride scholarship", by making the implication that the alleged "friend" must have been some kind of genius to qualify for such a scholarship, I'd like to pass on what Paul Harvey calls, "the rest of the story..." The Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at Berkeley has 260 full-time students enrolled, and last year 230 of them (i.e., most of them) had what GGG calls a "full-ride scholarship", which the university calls "full tuition reimbursements" -- but not because they were whiz kids. It's because they were paying for their tuition by working for the university as research assistants (150 of them) or teaching assistants (80 of them)...
But hey, if your alleged friend actually exists and isn't too busy still paying off his tuition by slaving away for the university, have him/her/it drop on in and explain what insights they've gained on "Darwinism" from having just finished school. Those of us who have been extending our education for 30+ years beyond our science degrees would be grateful if it turned out that against all odds your friend turned out to be the first anti-evolutionist we'd met yet who actually knew what in the hell he was talking about for a change, and actually had a valid objection to evolutionary biology instead of the usual hand-waving and gasped exclamations of, "golly, that sure seems complex to little old me!"
It would be a refreshing alternative to talking to you guys.
Hey, THAT WAS EASY! Maybe I will just try that next time. No muss no fuss, no facts needed, just an appeal to authority, and unlike others, my authority would actually be in the mainstream of thought within his field.
Reminds me of a limerick I heard somewhere:
I don't believe in "goo to you"
or in a primordial stew.
My sole science proctor:
My uncle, the "doctor"
Credentialed at Patriot U.
I think this particular phenomenon of ‘codes upon codes’ is an attempt to say that it is more complex than anyone understands or is capable of understanding and therefore the product of de-novo design (believe you me, we understand it is complex, and just because something is hard doesn’t mean it is impossible; quantum mechanics is complex also. And just because something is complex doesn’t mean it needed to be created from nothing; indeed the genome appears as if it was created from numerous and constant revision with all sorts of hitchhikers and crossed out sections) as well as a sort of appeal to some ‘great and secret show’ going on behind the scenes that poor ol’ Scientists just are not privy too , like some sort of hypothetical ‘Bible-code’ within the genome. Much like people who invent a ‘Bible-code’, it isn’t enough that the Bible provides a path to salvation, it also has to have hidden in it secret messages about the future? It isn’t enough for these people that we understand how Biology works and make it work for us, there has to be some secret message running the show behind the curtain.
It is like Biologists are a teenage kid with a car. He may not understand what half the parts do, but he gets the notion of internal combustion, adding gas, turning the wheel and pressing the brakes and gas pedal. Heck he may even know how the check fluids and change the oil. But every time he gets a tune up or buffs a dull spot out of the paint job some critic says “You don’t even HAVE a car! You don’t know how to drive!” and then maybe point out the obvious “Your no mechanic.” But the fact remains that the kid has a useful tool for getting where he is going, he is learning more and more about what is going on under the hood, and he might even pick up a hot chick this weekend.
Happy Holidays Everyone! Have a Merry Christmas, a cool Yule, and a Happy New Year!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.