A Living Cell Under An Electron Microscope [Spirituality & Religion]

@newjaninev2 [quote]Incorrect[/quote]

You call yourself a scientist?

[quote]Incorrect[/quote]

You need to study up on your science, young lady.

[quote]Incorrect[/quote]

Then you tell me what makes cats to act and look like cats and dogs to act like and look like dogs.

@GodSpeed63 Are you saying that any alteration to a cells genetic material will be fatal?

Is that what you’re claiming?

Well? Is it?

_________________________

You might like to note that there are no codes in DNA, because DNA is not a code.

Argue that with me. Go ahead. I double dare you to argue that with me.


_________________________


Let’s make sure we’re clear about what we mean by the word 'species'.


When talking about the concept of species, the first problem that seems to pop up is Essentialism. This is a hangover from Plato, who thought that every triangle (for example) was but an imperfect shadow of some essential triangle that existed in some or other conceptual space.


Ernst Mayr has pointed out that this same thinking seems to appear when people think about species… as if there’s some quintessential rabbit, against which it can be assessed whether or not any given organism is, or is not, a rabbit.


A species should never be seen as representing some gigantic and sudden leap from something to something else. [i]There is no magical point in time where biological differences allow separate species classifications.[/i] If you don’t understand this, then you’ll be be unable to understand evolution. (This appears to be the source of the creationist error that asks ‘where are the transitional fossils?’ without any awareness that all fossils are transitional fossils)


The closest we can come to the quintessential rabbit would be a specimen that sits in the centre of a vast number of bell-shaped distributions… a vast number because those distributions can address so many features (number of paws, size of paws, number of ears, size of ears, ability to leap, mechanics of leaping, tendency to leap, ability to digest grass, presence of whiskers, number of whiskers, nature of whiskers, muscular control of whiskers, etc… hundreds of thousands of such distributions would only be scratching the surface)


These distributions shift with time. That’s important, so I’ll repeat it...[i]these distributions shift with time.[/i] (Later in our discussion I'll address the causes of those shifts... although you will have dissembled and run away long before I each that point).

Over a large number of generations the distribution of ear lengths may (will) change, with ear lengths gradually becoming longer and longer (as an example… they may well move in the other direction). Eventually, the new distribution may not in any way overlap with the previous distribution… the longest ear length of the previous distribution will still be shorter than the shortest ear length of the current distribution.

[b]Here’s the question[/b]

How many distributions need to change, and to what degree, before the cloud of distributions we thought of as a ‘quintessential’ rabbit now forms a different ‘quintessential’ something else?

@newjaninev2 [quote]Are you saying that any alteration to a cells genetic material will be fatal?[/quote]

Any missing code or part to a cell will not hinder it from functioning or kill it. You should know that. Every gene in the cell must be in its place and well organized or the cell will not function or even die. Is this not in your text books?

[quote]You might like to note that there are no codes in DNA, because DNA is not a code.[/quote]

Wrong again, there is a genetic code in DNA and RNA, you should know that also. It's in your text books.


[quote]The closest we can come to the quintessential rabbit would be a specimen that sits in the centre of a vast number of bell-shaped distributions… a vast number because those distributions can address so many features [/quote]

The rabbit's feature will not over time for any reason or through any distribution. The rabbit, like any living being, is made complete and need not evolve.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]Is this not in your text books?[/quote]

it’s not in any textbook... because it’s demonstrably false. In fact, it makes no biological sense. On average, humans are born with 193 genetic mutation... most of which are completely neutral, with the affected cells functioning perfectly normally. If your (somewhat dramatic) claim had validity, this would not be possible.

[quote]there is a genetic code in DNA and RNA[/quote]

Any object can be represented by a symbol. This is the primary symbol.
The primary symbol is not a code. It merely stands in place of an object.
A code stands in place of a symbol: it is a symbol for a symbol.

For many humans, an object with feathers (a real object... actual and observable) can be represented by the symbol ‘bird’.
That symbol isn’t a code… it’s a representation (the primary symbol)
For computers (machines designed by intelligent beings with a goal), the symbol ‘bird’ might also be represented by
01100010011010010111001001100100
That’s a code, because it is a symbol for a symbol.

A nucleotide can be represented by a letter e.g. guanine is represented by G.
For one species of intelligent beings, G is the primary symbol (representation) of an object… in this case, a nitrogenous base that can be part of a nucleotide, and which forms three hydrogen bonds with cytosine.
Such primary symbols can used to represent a series of completely localised, tightly constrained, chemical interactions, and any series of such interactions can be represented by primary symbols e.g. GATACA
What you may notice is that this then does not progress to any form of secondary symbol. There is no symbol for which this is a symbol…[b] there is no code[/b].

[quote]The rabbit, like any living being, is made complete and need not evolve[/quote]

Evolution is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles. [b]Are you saying to me that change in allele distribution and frequency does not happen?[/b]

@newjaninev2 [quote]it’s not in any textbook...[/quote]

How did you ever get through college?

@GodSpeed63 So you have nothing to say about any of what I said?

You have nothing to offer, no argument you wish to form, no detail you wish to question.

You completely and unreservedly accept that there are high levels of fidelity and redundancy in cells.

You completely and unreservedly accept that the title of your animated depiction is misleading, and probably deliberately so.

You accept that DNA is not a code

You accept that there is change in the frequency and distribution of alleles [i]i.e.[/i] evolution

@newjaninev2 [quote]So you have nothing to say about any of what I said?[/quote]

I just did. With all that malarkey you just fed me, makes me wonder how you ever got through college.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]all that malarkey you just fed me[/quote]

What I did was to summarise what you apparently accept.

Do you object to my summary?

If so, why?

@GodSpeed63 [quote]makes me wonder how you ever got through college.[/quote]
That's almost certainly due to your frequently demonstrated ignorance of both science and academia.

@Lynda70 [quote] ignorance of both science and academia[/quote]

Skeptics have ignorance of both science and academia, even their scientists do not understand science. I, myself, am not a scientist but I do understand science.

@GodSpeed63 [quote]I, myself, am not a scientist[/quote]
That much is obvious.

[quote]but I do understand science[/quote]
ROFLMFAO! You repeatedly prove you don't have the faintest idea of the scientific method.

@Lynda70 [quote]You repeatedly prove you don't have the faintest idea of the scientific method.[/quote]

You may or may not know the scientific method, Lynda, but you have no understanding of it. Otherwise, you'd be seeking out the truth and not try to prove a myth like evolution.

@GodSpeed63 I’ve asked this before.

Why do you care so much about evolution?

I can think of many scientific subjects that Biblical science would refute. But everyone spends so much energy on evolution. Why?

@GodSpeed63 [quote]prove a myth like evolution[/quote]

Your appalling lack of the scientific process is evident in that phrase.

Scientific Theories are [i]never[/i] proven, nor do scientists make any effort to prove them. Science seeks to [i][b]disprove[/b][/i] its theories. Those Theories remain accepted until they are falsified... at which point they are replaced by the better Theory.

You continue to repeat the lie that evolution is a myth (perhaps we should call your claim The Big Lie?)

Would you like to see some evidence for evolution?

@GodSpeed63 It's actually delightful watching newjanine handing you your arse on a plate. I don't understand half of what she says but i KNOW she schools you big time dude.
It's wonderful to watch.

@Entwistle [quote] I don't understand half of what she says but i KNOW she schools you big time dude.[/quote]

Wishful thinking, dude.