________________________________ From: D R Lindberg To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:57 PM Subject:Message 1 of 105 , Mar 31, 2012View Source________________________________
From: D R Lindberg <dr.lindberg@...>
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:57 PM
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: How Do You Like Your Science? (Crick's dictum or not)
> DRL: I think that I have asked you for a definition of this"PREEXISTING DNA DIGITAL CODE" (because I REALLY don't understand it) and for some evidence of its existence, but you never replied. Could you please do
> so?functionally match and interact as we see in the machine of life once the the system is implemented and put into operation in its properly "designed"
> Kamran: What had to preexist life, would have been the design for the package of software and hardware that could
environment. As for the software package, firstly it is not digital; you can say it
is descriptive. Machines can read the codon description for the amino
acids and mount them in place. Also what rests n the DNA can't be called a code;
it is the set of characters that are used by specialized nano-machinery to manufacture the code on an mRNA. There is quite a significant change,
through splicing, between what goes from DNA to the tRNA and what ends up on
>to the set of characters and letters used in a high level computer program
> What sits on the DNA has no coding properties on its own. You can compare this
language like C or Java. To write the actual functional programs, you need someone with the knowledge of programming in that language to
place these characters and letters inthe proper order to write program routines. The reason
evolution stops dead in its tracks is that even if you agree with the
direct role of a Creator to put the original machine together, you can
not expect new routines to be naturally generated by programing machines
that didn't exist before while for these programing machines to exist
they also need their corresponding routines to be implemented on an mRNA
and for other necessary structures and machinery to also be in place.
>happen to our descendents over the coming centuries, millennia, perhaps
> DRL: And it raises some interesting questions. For example, does this mean that we now have the "PREEXISTING DNA DIGITAL CODE" in our genomes for all the future evolution that is going to
millions of years?
>Creator decides to introduce new designs.
> Kamran: What future evolution? Where have you seen evolution before?
> DRL: Where is it?
> Kamran: Stop looking. Evolution never happened, and it will never happen. Our physics won't change unless we learn to intelligently re-engineer ourselves or the
>descendents are going to develop into a difference species, or set of species,
> DRL: Does this mean that, for example, we can now tell than your
than mine? That mine are going to go extinct before yours do?
>different species. Where mankind's intellectual development is taking it is a different
> HOW can we tell?
> Kamran: There is nothing to tell. No life has ever physically developed into a
>us how we would go about searching for answers to questions like these, if you
> DRL: If your idea is a scientific theory, you should be able to tell
don't have them already.
>and the logical inference of those facts. Mankind cannot ignore his logical inference of scientific facts just because
> How about it?
> Kamran: Questions like those have already been answered by scientific facts
he does not have the intellectual, physical or mathematical ability to run
controlled experiments with the impliations of those facts. One important reason for this inability is that when it comes to testing
the acts and methods of the Creator, we cannot force the Creator to be a
controlled variable. Also when it comes to analyzing the direct actions of the
Creator in past events, we are firstly unable to identify and factor in all
relevant variables that form an event. Assuming that all variables are identified we would have very limited
mathematical ability to model the dynamic behavior of all variables present in the
test and their corresponding impact on the resulting outcomes. Finally,
if one offers consistent analysis of how the Creator intervened in past events and how he intervenes in
events in our present lives, most, if not all, people are not prepared for the
controversies that arise as a result of analyzing the Creator's role in the events
in our lives.
>in the US and Israel consider military confrontation with Iran, they would be
> On that last note, for instance do you think when the centers of power
interested in knowing what the Creator thought about the merits of their position
and the outcome of their actions, in case they initiated a confrontation?
>DRL: I'm afraid I have no idea of what you are talking about, or what you
are saying about it.
Is it possible to say all that simply and clearly, without all the
jargon and gobbledegook?
Thanks a million!
Kamran: Given the manner it is presented, I assume your question applies to all the above post and not just this last section. The main purpose of the above was to explain to you that, when it comes to functionality, DNA does not have a code, and that the genetic code is a manufactured product which is implemented on the mRNA by programmer machines, etc. etc. And furthermore the purpose of my post was to clarify to you that the pre-existing element about the machine of life is the matching software hardware design of the entire system and not only it's DNA content and that expecting this information-based quantum-mechanical system to distinctly re-program itself and to change itself to another quantum mechanical system is an expectation that can only come from the power of extreme ignorance about the features of this machine. But don't worry I won't disturb your preferred marry-go-round discussions any more.
"We do not see things as they are, we see them as we are."
Kamran: Now this explains why evolutionists think they are evolved ....
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
... LOL. How many other choices do you think there are? However, it is not a matter of choosing. It is a matter of thinking through the implications of yourMessage 105 of 105 , Apr 9, 2012View Source--- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
>LOL. How many other choices do you think there are?
> Gluadys: What does this predict concerning empirical observations of the
> placement of nostrils in cetacean fossils? Your hypothesis should lead to a
> clear answer to these questions:
> 1. Should there be fossils with characteristics intermediate between a
> terrestrial mammal and a modern cetacean? Yes or no?
> Charles P: I am only given two choices, so I will choose "no".
However, it is not a matter of choosing. It is a matter of thinking through the implications of your theory.
I am not asking if Charles Palm thinks there should or should not be fossils with characteristics intermediate between terrestrial and marine mammals.
I am asking: "What does your theory say about this?"
So, instead of just saying "no" you should be able to say: "According to my theory the answer is `no' because ___________________."
Note that the evolutionary theory can do this. According to evolutionary theory the answer must be "yes" because evolution only allows for relatively small changes per generation so many generations must be intermediate between a fully terrestrial ancestor and a fully marine descendant.
So, why does your theory say "no"?
>Then the question is moot.
> 2. If the answer to 1. is yes, should one of those intermediate
> characteristics be a placement of the nostrils between the snout and the
> top of the head? Yes or no?
> Charles P: What if the answer is: No.
>You mean empirical methods like exploring for and finding fossils, carefully removing fossils from the place of discovery, carefully studying fossils, listing all their characteristics, measuring them in detail and comparing them with one another and with living species?
>What we should be discussing is EMPIRICAL METHODS. No one
> doubts that different animals have different nostril designs. What is
> scientific about THAT?
It is not just that different animals have different nostril designs. It is the way the differences fall into patterns. That is why comparative anatomy is important. Paleontologists don't just look for character traits to catalogue them. They look for patterns that illuminate our understanding of biological history.
>Your theory is unscientific because it cannot do what a scientific theory ought to be able to do. It cannot determine in advance what empirical evidence a scientist needs to look for to support or falsify a theory.
> Charles P: I assume that because I cannot answer your questions to your
> satisfaction that it is sufficient evidence, in your opinion, that
> neo-Darwinism is "right" because anyone who questions neo-Darwinism is
> "wrong". That is unscientific.
You can't answer the question because your theory gives you no way to expect one thing rather than another. The theory of evolution provides a way to do that.
>Try me. Show me some evidence that is clearly at odds with the theory of evolution.
> Charles P: In my opinion, you will ALWAYS believe in neo-Darwinism and
> theistic evolution no matter what evidence is presented to you.
It is part
> of your philosophies and who you are. All that I am saying is that thereYou mean that no one found any fossils of Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorodon or various other cetaceans? No one undertook the very empirical work of digging them up, examining the place they were found, examining the fossils themselves and co-relating the findings for comparison?
> are no EMPIRICAL METHODS ever presented to support the philosophies.
Are you sure you know what "empirical" means?
>That is unfair, Charles. You know I haven't made any of this up. You know, you have probably read yourself, of these discoveries. You know the empirical work and empirical observations that went into scientific conclusions about evolution. And if you haven't, the internet gives you quick access to this information.
> Charles P: Gluadys, you and other writers have the advantage that you can
> just make stuff up using LOGICAL REASONING without EMPIRICAL METHODS.
> Anyone who honestly doubts what you have to say must come up with
> EMPIRICAL METHODS to prove that what you said was just made up from your
> own imagination. I don't mind a discussion of EMPIRICAL METHODS, but I
> really do not see any point in discussion of YOUR PHILOSOPHIES.
So, what empirical methods have you used, or have you heard of being used to support your conclusions? Tell me what your empirical methods are and then we can compare them. For example, what empirical methods tell you there cannot be creatures preserved in the fossil record with traits intermediate between terrestrial and marine mammals?
> Charles P: Sharks and dolphins are NOT RELATED. (There are no EMPIRICALActually there are. By using empirical methods we can determine that dolphins are more closely related to sharks than they are to squid. Of course, they are not closely related to sharks. Empirical methods also tell us dolphins are more closely related to trout than to sharks, though not by much. OTOH they are much more closely related to giraffes than to squid, sharks or trout. All of this comes from using empirical methods to study anatomy, embryology and genomics.
> METHODS to describe ancestry between dolphins and land mammals, either).
>Well, it has been tested by observation. Nostrils on cetacean-like fossils do occur in intermediate positions and do occur closer to the top of the head in species that lived more recently. That is factual observation (an empirical method) and matches the hypothesis.
> Charles P: The Gluadys hypothesis of nostril location on extinct fossil
> species can't be tested by further investigation. No one knows why extinct
> animals were purposefully designed that way. If we knew why, that would be
> teleology and it would be prohibited by neo-Darwinism and theistic
> evolutionism philosophies.
Of course, the alternate hypothesis of purposive design (which is deemed not to entail evolution) tells us nothing at all. It cannot tell us to expect this sequence of intermediate traits, nor can it explain why the sequence actually exists. A very strange deficiency in a theory that claims to be founded on the existence of purpose. One would think that purpose would be easily explainable. Especially if one applies reverse engineering to figure out what a character trait is used for.
Now what if one unites evolution and purposeful design, seeing evolution as the natural means by which God produced his beautiful and diverse designs? Why not?