Joined: Oct. 2009
|Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,10:20)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 04 2012,10:04)|
Then why don't we measure/determine the CSI of DNA instead of proteins?
LOL..... :) :p :)
Well, hell son, I've asked you this five times earlier in this thread and you never ONCE said to use DNA. Every discussion from your end of CSI was based on amino acids in racemic solutions randomly forming.
There was NEVER a discussion of DNA (from you), because I specifically stated
|So, by this, I'm assuming that you are totally ignoring DNA in the calculation of CSI.|
Why didn't you just say "protein"?
So, you've just admitted that fundamentals of biology (7th grade stuff here) like DNA and reproduction are totally ignored by CSI.
Which you ignored. I can only assume that I was correct.
But NOW... NOW, we have all this new stuff about DNA and you're getting all interested in that.
WE DO.....Sheeze....I'm really getting tired of trying to debate with someone who has obviously not even given the subject a cursory google....You don't understand CSI in it's most basic snse, I'm afraid....
Then why haven't you EVER mentioned it after me ASKING YOU about it five times?
As far as not understanding CSI, it's because the people who claim to understand it either suck at teaching or don't understand it themselves.
|You specifically told me that you determine CSI for proteins and NOT DNA after I specifically asked you this question FOUR times.|
I did NOT... :) I told you that WE were not calculating anything about DNA, not that people don't do so....do you REALLY think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA? You're just lost.
Goalpost shift. I was asking a specific question about calculating CSI on proteins OR DNA. You refused to answer the question four times, then finally, you only post about amino acids. What am I supposed to think?
Let's see, do I think that amino acids forming a polypeptide has anything to do with DNA?
Let me think about that a minute. I believe I mentioned this before. You might have heard of it...
THE CENTRAL DOGMA OF MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
You know, where DNA uses specific sequences of nucleotides as a code for the assembly of proteins.
But you and other IDists don't seem to understand that fundamental concept of biology, since you seem to think that every single protein in existence assembles randomly from a racemic solution of amino acids. At least that's what CSI calculates.
|500 bits of information of amino acid information results in a longer protein than 500 bits of nucleotide information converted into a protein.|
Which 500 bits is more relevant, amino acids or DNA or RNA or PNA?
I don't know what you're talking about and you don't either.
Then perhaps you need to learn more about the things you're expounding upon.
I'll say it again. If you have a 500 bit sequence of amino acids and a 500 bit sequence of nucleotides. Then you convert the nucleotide sequence into a protein using a ribosome, the resulting protein is smaller than the protein in the amino acid sequence I just mentioned.
Because a 100 AA chain is smaller than an 83 AA chain.
So, which one do you focus on and why?
|And BTW: Why don't you explain, in detail, how an individual organism "evolves" or "speciates"? I'm really looking forward to hearing how this happens.|
Just read a biology textbook....
Really? That's your answer?
In other words, you don't have a clue.
As has been said before a single organism does not evolve. Nor does it speciate.
Tell you what, prove to us that you have a single clue. Name and describe three forms of speciation. I bet you won't do it.
And thanks for your posts........You might want to hang out on some introductory forums for awhile (or this may be one, I dunno). Then when you learn the basics and what the concepts are you're trying to debate, look me up.
No one is debating you. We're crushing you. You have no idea what's going on, so you keep insulting and repeating the same crap over and over again. It's hilarious.
As far as the implied insult... I think it's cut that you think that way. I do more work in this field every day than you'll do in a lifetime.
I'm going to move on to other, more advanced posters now as I have a lot to cover......
"lot to cover" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You've kept saying the same thing for pages and pages. You're a broken record. You aren't covering any new ground.
You might try dealing with the fundamental mistakes of your notion.
You might try understanding the argument your pretending to attack (hint: look up "strawman").
There's lots of things you could do, but you won't and we both know it.
Let me leave you with one other thought. If you're so damned smart and CSI is so damned valuable, then why are you here at AtBC arguing with (and losing to) someone who you think has no idea what's going on?
Why aren't you publishing this stuff? Why aren't you making millions using ID principles to find new products and new processes? Why aren't you helping NASA with their new findings on Mars?
Edited by OgreMkV on Dec. 04 2012,10:53
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.