Protein synthesis, DNA translation, m-RNA transcription

[metty1948]

(2) Now, since after reading that you can't deny the existence of non-material entities, & the fact that YOU as a human being have a non-material entity called a soul, which you already know, but as an evolutionist or atheist have been trying not to think about & suppressing this truth, please listen to Jesus' tender words of love and warning to turn you to eternal salvation instead of eternal punishment for your life: "What will it profit a man, if he gains the whole world, but lose his soul?"

[metty1948]

Purely materialistic evolution (i.e.purely material entities creating all life ((including DNA, which transmits a non-material entity, called information)) ), with no non-material Intelligent Designer, conmpletely DEMOLISHED by the Scientific Laws about Information. Purely materialistic evolution as the source of all life is a lie. Open your mind: creationDOTcom/information-the­ory-questions-and-answers Read "Scientific Laws of Information Parts 1 and 2" You will never adequately refute this

[zthomasack]

Why do these facts overturn evolution?

Nice animation, I might add.

[glorybelongstojesus]

Random mutation cannot produce this!!

[TChapman500]

...Also, having components from one system in other systems does not make that system not irreducibly complex. The component must STOP the system from functioning if removed. Using it in other systems does NOT cause the system to stop functioning. Only if the component is REMOVED from the said system will the system stop functioning.

[TChapman500]

Amazing. Absolutely amazing. This video makes no attempt to overturn evolution, yet it's attacked anyways for showing the facts (which do overturn evolution).

@DrSarfati Fining new components in an irreducibly complex system does not mean it is not irreducibly complex. It means that it is more complex than we initially realized. You are making it sound like discovering new components is the same as adding new components.

continued...

[EvolutionDismantled]

Evolution could not do this. Period.

[IloveYOUviruses]

Deniers have no excuse:

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses You're quoting the book you're trying to evidence and using it as evidence, that's entirely circular logic.

[IloveYOUviruses]

This is science vs evolution

they just hate design, but nature LOVES design

Every creature that hath breath, praise the Lord. Amen!!!

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses No, this is science being utterly misunderstood by creationists.

There is no hate of design, no one claiming design has demonstrated design, only asserted it.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DrSarfati Lol, you are so easy to provoke, all one has to say is: "what an excellent design!"

or "what an excellent machinery!"

Its just a video about facts! It is obvious that you hate observable science, furhter investigation will reveal even more complexity :) I am certain of it.

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses So now instead of defending your position, you're basically claiming that you were trolling.

It probably will but something creationists seem to be ignorant of is the fact that complexity alone is not a metric of design.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DrSarfati Some claim that complexity is metric of design, some don't

the fact is that molecular biology seems to conspire to increase the number of Christians

and as the discoveries increase, so will increase this kind of videos in creationist webpages :)

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses No one who actually understands genetics or molecular biology is claiming complexity alone is a metric of design. We actually understand that there are natural processes that can and do increase complexity. Molecular biology hasn't inspired any intellectual honest person to become theistic and you really show your bias by saying 'increase the number of *Christians*" and not 'design proponents'

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses You have one thing right though, I have no doubt that the number of fallacious creationist videos strawmanning and bare asserting will increase independently along side, but not coinciding with, actual science.

You really prove my point, I've asked every creationist on this board for an actual mechanism of design. I've gotten nothing but the same empty assertion.

[IloveYOUviruses]

Not to mention that genetic information requires chyrality in order to form an stable structure ;)

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses Chirality can be and is affected via natural means, IE polarized starlight can positively differentiate amino acids.

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses Again, ignorance of how these systems serve other function in the cell is not a valid argument.

[IloveYOUviruses]

If only they had included alternative splicing....

all this process is extremely beautiful! And our loving Creator even more!

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses Yeah they didn't have enough arguments from incredulity as it is.

[krisv001]

Very nice !

[barghumer]

It's the evolutionists that use fallacies and "just so" stories and have to resort to magic to explain the origin of anything. Hopelessly lost and entrenched in nonesense.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer No, thus far that's been the sole domain of the creationists.  Evolution uses actual mechanisms to explain the diversity of living systems, creationism has nothing but 'magic just made it that way'

[barghumer]

Data is not the same as information, even if the words are often used interchangeably. Information is always data, but data is not always information. Take for instance a one time single bit transmission "1" or "0", how much data does it have and how much information? It has one bit of data, but the information for a single bit can be enourmous because the information carried depends on how the data is interpreted (decoded) by the receiver.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer Data is information, it's distinguishing essential characteristics. Any interpretation applied to a system doesn't affect the quantity of information inherent in that system.

[barghumer]

The analogy is about the nature of information and it is independent of replication which has nothing whatever to do with any definition of information except for the accuracy of replication at the receiver.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer Of course it does, distinguishing characteristics is by definition information even if there is no external force to scrutinize those distinguishments.

[barghumer]

I never heard of a Sarfati before, and I made a false assumption that the video from creationclips that Sarfati would be the creationist doctor who talks a lot of sense. I think you deleiberately played on that, and it would have been better to distinguish yourself from him in your name. It is a good example of assumptions made when attempting to decode information - wrong decoder gives wrong information.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer There is *a* Sarfati that works for CMI, but there's not a Sarfati in any of these videos that talks any sense, just the same creationist fallacies over and over. Why should I have to use a different name?

[barghumer]

Okay, you got me. I thought it was the real Dr.Sarfati but clearly this guy is an impostor. It should be reported.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer Do you think there is only one person with the surname Sarfati?

[barghumer]

Does anyone know of any example where information arises from non-intelligent sources? I mean information which implies coding and decoding, not just data.

[barghumer]

Does anyone know of any example where information arises from non-intelligent sources? I mean information which implies coding and decoding, not just data.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer That's what I've been explaining to 1GodOnlyOne across a dozen posts, emergence produces information from natural systems. 'Genetic code' simply means the biochemical basis of heredity, it's not an actual programmed code.

[barghumer]

@DrSarfati

How can it not be a programmed code? The data stored on a PC is just 1 and 0, nothing else, but we know it is ultimately from a programmer. When data requires a very specific decoder in order to fulfill it's task as information, i.e for the receiver to be informed, someone at least must have designed the decoder, and therefore the encoder too. I very much appreciate your books, articles and responses to questions but I really think you are missing something here.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer We know that computer code is programmed because for one it's artificial and not subject to replication with variation and we actually know we programmed it with testable repeatable mechanisms. Trying to apply known designed artificial non-replicating code to genetic code is a completely erroneous analogy.

[1GodOnlyOne]

You have failed to provide evidence for your silly belief that any non-intelligent entity could somehow produce information, so you lose.

By dint of an extreme lack of intelligence yourself, you obviously don't even know what the word "intelligent" means, and I am DONE with you.

atheist total fail

[DrSarfati]

@1GodOnlyOne Again, your inability to understand how natural processes produce information is not a valid argument that they don't.

Instead of simply flinging around personal attacks, you could've tried to point out how anything I posted was specifically wrong, instead of just asserting it so and resorting to ad hominems.

[1GodOnlyOne]

You made the claim that a non-intelligent source could produce information, but failed to provide evidence for that silly, incorrect belief.

ALL examples of information come from intelligent sources -- that is the evidence.

You failed to provide evidence that "nature" could somehow produce information, so you lose.

atheist total fail

[DrSarfati]

@1GodOnlyOne "Systems with emergent properties or emergent structures may appear to defy entropic principles and the second law of thermodynamics, because they form and increase order despite the lack of command and central control. This is possible because open systems can extract information and order out of the environment."

[barghumer]

@DrSarfati

I am not aware of any examples of information (data plus coding) arises from nature.

[1GodOnlyOne]

Moron, you are the one who made the positive assertion, not me. You claimed that a non-intelligent source can produce information, but you failed to provide evidence for that silly, illogical, unscientific assertion.

Your failed dodge via the logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof" further demonstrates the fact that you have no evidence for your silly belief.

atheist total fail

[DrSarfati]

@1GodOnlyOne You made the claim that 'all information comes only from intelligence'

That's a positive assertion that would require positive evidence, but as I said since we both know you don't have any I thought I'd be nice and produce evidence for the fact that nature can and does produce information.

I've already provided evidence that nature can produce information, and you're projecting your shifting of the burden of proof.

[barghumer]

@DrSarfati

This response doesn't seem like what I would expect from the Dr.Sarfati I usually read. Is there some confusion with information and data? they are not the same.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer Yes, they are, data is distinguishing characteristics.

[barghumer]

@DrSarfati

I don't agree with your statement. I can have data that is not information. For instance "10110101" is data but it is not information unless you also know the code used to code it. Likewise "CMI" means something to you because you have a decoder that recognises it (in your brain) so you can say it is information but someone who doesn't know about "CMI" would not recognise it. For them it is only a sequence of characters that says nothing. Coding and decoding is the difference.

[DrSarfati]

@barghumer No you can't, anything that makes distinguishment possible is by definition information. It can also have meaning that we apply to it, but it in and of itself contains distinguishing essential characteristics.

[AffairWithGravity]

The implication being that 'It's complex therefore goddidit' ?

Well how did he do it? What mechanisms did he use? How can this be tested? How can this be falsified?

Or is it nothing but bare assertion?

[DrSarfati]

Protein synthesis is peptide bonding, not chance. No one who has any clue about what protein synthesis actually is has ever claimed it was chance. Do you people think god actually comes down and bonds and folds the proteins by hand?

DNA translation is ribosome transcription, not chance. No one who has any idea what DNA translation is has ever claimed it was chance.

Nothing in this video is chance or otherwise accidental, they're processes run by well known molecular stages.

[1ballerina]

So beautiful, so genius, and all with love! Praise God!

[1GodOnlyOne]

The presence of information always indicates an intelligent source.

The very first dna/rna definitely contained information, but it could not have gotten that information from any previous dna/rna, because no other dna/rna existed prior to the first.

Therefore, an intelligent source must necessarily have existed, along with information, prior to the first dna/rna.

God bless you!

[DrSarfati]

@1GodOnlyOne 'The presence of information always indicates an intelligent source.'

No it doesn't. In information theory the primary definition of information is 'distinguishing essential characteristics' this means any process that makes distinction possible produces information.

Also, you've set it up in a completely circular and unfalsifiable fashion "I assert that all information comes from mind, therefore this came from mind"

[1GodOnlyOne]

@DrSarfati You have failed to provide evidence of any supposed information source that is not intelligent, so you lose.

Your assertions are laughable garbage with no evidence to back them up.

atheist total fail

[DrSarfati]

@1GodOnlyOne In reality since you made the positive assertion, it would be up to you to provide positive evidence. But since I'm such a nice guy, and the evidence is on my side, read up on emergence.

[IloveYOUviruses]

This doesn't happen for free, all those reactions require energy: ATP, which is made by proteins, which are codified in the DNA, which is translated using ATP and proteins... so, yeah, it is the irreducible trinity.

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses If it were irreducible, we would expect subsets of the system to be functionless. Guess what, they aren't. Read up on Guanosine triphosphate, that is if you actually care about the facts.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DrSarfati So... I try to keep it simple for the evo-head and you mention other energetic coins? Your devotion is quite lame. You are only complicating things for the evo-head.

Energy, info, and translation machines are always needed as the irreducibe trinity.

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses You keep it simple because you have no understanding of anything to do with science.

Coins? This is a great example of you having no idea what you're talking about, GTP is an energy transfer system within the cell that is also contains a subset of ATP, completely debunking the notion that it's irreducibly complex.

It's not irreducible because every component serves other functions in the cell

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DrSarfati If it transfers energy, then it is an energetic coin. Mentioning GTP only complicates things, if you keep adding elements from cellular respiration such as the Krebs cycle, you will never debunk the irreducible trinity, you'd only keep increasing the problem.

In the meantime, you are exposing the fanatism of the evo-head and the vicious vocabulary of the atheist.

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses Actually the point was that you can add parts to a system that serves another function and make it irreducible, you seem to recognize this yourself.

Actually all I've exposed thus far is your ignorance of descent with modification.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DrSarfati Obviously you can add parts to an irreducible system to make it even more complex, the design inference comes from observing a translation machinery that requires proteins, energy, and information, so far, you've only complicated the problem,

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses You can add parts to a reducible system to make it irreducibly complex in the sense that it won't serve the exact same function if one part is removed. IE, you can build a house of cards step by step and once you get to the second level you can't remove any of the parts that previously functioned just fine by themselves.

[IloveYOUviruses]

@DrSarfati Dude, cards alone are no system, your analogy is so equivocated that it doesn't even hide your faith.

If proteins are one card, then that card is useless by itself. the same for info, the same for energy. They all require each other, they are the irreducible trinity of biology.

[DrSarfati]

@IloveYOUviruses And you miss the analogy completely. One card one equal one amino acid and the house of cards would equal the peptide bonding that produces proteins.

[thechessstick]

@DrSarfati Is Sartarti a Jewish name or Arab? I find it quite funny how Islam embraces evolution and an old Earth. It is almost as if they sever Satan himself.

[holdfastthyword]

@hesbatting1000  Praise God.

[DrSarfati]

@hesbatting1000 You mean you realized you never actually understood evolution and instead of trying, you opted for the willful ignorance of creationism. Creationism offers exactly zero testable mechanisms, useful hypotheses or falsifiable predictions, with a margin of error of zero.

For instance, how would creationism empirically explain this; /watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

Evolution does it just fine by divergence followed by descent with modification.

[DrSarfati]

@hesbatting1000 That's a fallacy known as affirming the consequent

If languages that are known to be designed are designed, then language X (DNA is more a cipher than a language) which is not known to be designed is designed.

It's purely circular logic.

[DrSarfati]

@hesbatting1000 No, it's an example of affirming the consequent

If A then B

B, therefore A, substitute 'language' and 'design'

I practice no faith, you're simply projecting. The difference being we have actual naturalistic mechanisms that have thus far produced components of DNA with no magic or Djinn in sight. Creationists still only have assertion.

[DrSarfati]

@hesbatting1000 No, your argument was

"If language of known design is designed, then language which hasn't been shown or known to be designed was designed'

[thechessstick]

And evolutionists think this all came about by accident?! LOL The more we know about these processes the more we see the awesomeness of God's creation.

[AusDisciple]

@thechessstick Amen!!!! My thoughts EXACTLY! This DESIGN is simply phenomenal! Praise God!

[DrSarfati]

@thechessstick No, protein folding is hydrophobia, no one who isn't retarded regarding molecular biology is claiming this was an accident.

[thechessstick]

@DrSarfati Dr..... LOL @ that. You should read some of A. E. Wilder-Smith's works. Also, Robert Dick Wilson's works would be good for you. And let's not forget Ron Wyatt's discoveries.