The Genetic Code is a Real Code
-
When confronted with the evidence for intelligent design, the opposition will say and do just about anything in order to try to defend their indefensible position. Case in point- the genetic code.
When confronted with the genetic code, evolutionists will: A) deny it is a code, B) Yeah it looks like a code but it is just a metaphor or C) agree that it is a code but that nature didit. They all agree that nature didit. It kinda just happened along the way. We don't know how be we are comforted by the fact that it did (wink, wink- or nudge, nudge to a blind person).
The denialists aren't even worth the time. And they can be taken care of with group B. Just show them the definitions of the word "code" and easily demonstrate how the genetic code meets at least one definition. Then show them the definitions of the word "metaphor" and easily demonstrate how it doesn't relate to the genetic code.
The genetic code is as real of a code as Morse code. The mRNA codons represent their respective amino acids. The mRNA codons do not have anything to do with the synthesis of any amino acids, let alone the AA's they represent. The scientists who named it did so because it has all of the qualifications to be called a code. It is literally applicable.
And it isn't just the code. You need all of the transcription and translation components so that the code can be carried out in a biologically relevant way. Otherwise why even have it?
Group C is at least partially honest and are hoping to make it to their graves before they are proven wrong. Some may make but my hope is most do not.
See also- The Real Genetic Code (Larry is in group C)
When confronted with the evidence for intelligent design, the opposition will say and do just about anything in order to try to defend their indefensible position. Case in point- the genetic code.
When confronted with the genetic code, evolutionists will: A) deny it is a code, B) Yeah it looks like a code but it is just a metaphor or C) agree that it is a code but that nature didit. They all agree that nature didit. It kinda just happened along the way. We don't know how be we are comforted by the fact that it did (wink, wink- or nudge, nudge to a blind person).
The denialists aren't even worth the time. And they can be taken care of with group B. Just show them the definitions of the word "code" and easily demonstrate how the genetic code meets at least one definition. Then show them the definitions of the word "metaphor" and easily demonstrate how it doesn't relate to the genetic code.
The genetic code is as real of a code as Morse code. The mRNA codons represent their respective amino acids. The mRNA codons do not have anything to do with the synthesis of any amino acids, let alone the AA's they represent. The scientists who named it did so because it has all of the qualifications to be called a code. It is literally applicable.
And it isn't just the code. You need all of the transcription and translation components so that the code can be carried out in a biologically relevant way. Otherwise why even have it?
Group C is at least partially honest and are hoping to make it to their graves before they are proven wrong. Some may make but my hope is most do not.
See also- The Real Genetic Code (Larry is in group C)
posted by Joe G @ 5:58 PM
27 Comments:
At 2:13 AM,
JV said…
From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_code#Origin
"Stereochemical affinity: the genetic code is a result of a high affinity between each amino acid and its codon or anti-codon; the latter option implies that pre-tRNA molecules matched their corresponding amino acids by this affinity. Later during evolution, this matching was gradually replaced with matching by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases."
(and the references are rather old so I assume a lot more work has been done since)
"Chemical principles govern specific RNA interaction with amino acids. Experiments with aptamers showed that some amino acids have a selective chemical affinity for their codons. Experiments showed that of 8 amino acids tested, 6 show some RNA triplet-amino acid association."
At 8:56 AM,
Joe G said…
Do you have a point? You do realize that all you have posted are untestable hypotheses, right?
There still is no physical or chemical determination between the mRNA codon and the amino acid it represents. For example no one knows why the mRNA codon CAG represents the amino acid glutamine
At 2:03 AM,
JV said…
Do you have a point? You do realize that all you have posted are untestable hypotheses, right?
One of the references to the Wikipedia article:
Origin of the genetic code: a testable hypothesis based on tRNA structure, sequence, and kinetic proofreading.
We hypothesize that the origin of the genetic code is associated with the structure of the tRNA that existed in primal cells. The sequences of modern tRNA contain correlations which can be understood as "fossil" evidence of the secondary structure of primal tRNA. Kinetic proofreading through diffusion can amplify a low level of intrinsic selectivity of tRNA for its amino acid. Experimental tests of the theory are suggested.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC336109/
And that paper was published in 1978
There still is no physical or chemical determination between the mRNA codon and the amino acid it represents. For example no one knows why the mRNA codon CAG represents the amino acid glutamine
It's relatively easy to find articles such as this:
The Stereochemical Basis of the Genetic Code and the (Mostly) Autotrophic Origin of Life
I will argue that although simple abiotic molecules must have primed proto-metabolic pathways, only Darwinian evolving systems could have generated life. This condition may have been initially fulfilled by both replicating RNAs and autocatalytic reaction chains, such as the reductive citric acid cycle. The interactions between nucleotides and biotic amino acids, which conferred new functionalities to the former, also resulted in the progressive stereochemical recognition of the latter by cognate anticodons. At this point only large enough amino acids would be recognized by the primordial RNA adaptors and could polymerize forming the first peptides. The gene duplication of RNA adaptors was a crucial event. By removing one of the anticodons from the acceptor stem the new RNA adaptor liberated itself from the stereochemical constraint and could be acylated by smaller amino acids. The emergence of messenger RNA and codon capture followed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4284479/
It's not an isolated opinion that the genetic 'code' may have partly arisen because of basic chemical affinities. And, if that is the case, then it's not a true 'code' despite what has been previously stated or believed.
At 9:44 AM,
Joe G said…
Oh my. You will just accept anything if you think it supports your position.
I don't care about opinions. I care about SCIENCE.
The RNA world is a fantasy. And given Spiegelman's Monster there is no way to go from the RNA world to a living organism.
The genetic code is a real code. Gene duplication is not a blind watchmaker mechanism. And there isn't enough time to do that trick, anyway.
There still is no physical or chemical determination between the mRNA codon and the amino acid it represents. For example no one knows why the mRNA codon CAG represents the amino acid glutamine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/ Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
Look up the word "enigma"
At 11:19 AM,
JV said…
Oh my. You will just accept anything if you think it supports your position.
I don't care about opinions. I care about SCIENCE.
Science starts out as informed hypotheses, which means they are already based on informed guesses or hunches that have a possibility of being true.
The RNA world is a fantasy. And given Spiegelman's Monster there is no way to go from the RNA world to a living organism.
Perhaps. But why not check it out? Why decide something is impossible without making some attempt at seeing if it's possible.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3293468/ Origin and evolution of the genetic code: the universal enigma
From the abstract of that paper:
"Thus, much of the evolution that led to the standard code could be a combination of frozen accident with selection for error minimization although contributions from coevolution of the code with metabolic pathways and weak affinities between amino acids and nucleotide triplets cannot be ruled out."
And further down:
"We first briefly outline the three theories in their respective historical contexts and then discuss the current status of each.
The stereochemical theory asserts that the codon assignments for particular amino acids are determined by a physicochemical affinity that exists between the amino acids and the cognate nucleotide triplets (codons or anticodons). Thus, under this class of models, the specific structure of the code is not at all accidental but, rather, necessary and, possibly, unique. The first stereochemical model was developed by Gamow in 1954, almost immediately after the structure of DNA has been resolved and, effectively, along with the idea of the code itself. Gamow proposed an explicit mechanism to relate amino acids and rhomb-shaped ‘holes’ formed by various nucleotides in DNA. Subsequently, after the code was deciphered, more realistic stereochemical models have been proposed but were generally deemed improbable due to the failure of direct experiments to identify specific interactions between amino acids and cognate triplets. Nevertheless, the inherent attractiveness of the stereochemical theory which, if valid, makes it much easier to see how the code evolution started, stimulated further experimental and theoretical activity in this area."
Note the comment about experimental activity. That'd be science then.
At 11:19 AM,
JV said…
And then further along:
"Extensive early experimentation has detected, at best, weak and relatively non-specific interactions between amino acids and their cognate triplets. Nevertheless, it is not unreasonable to argue that even a relatively weak, moderately selective affinity between codons (anticodons) and the cognate amino acids could have been sufficient to precipitate the emergence of the primordial code that subsequently evolved into the modern code in which the specificity is maintained by much more precise and elaborate, indirect mechanisms involving tRNAs and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases. Furthermore, it can be argued that interaction between amino acids and triplets are strong enough for detection only within the context of specific RNA structures that ensure the proper conformation of the triplet; this could be the cause of the failure of straightforward experiments with trinucleotides or the corresponding polynucleotides. Indeed, the modern version of the stereochemical theory, the ‘escaped triplet theory’ posits that the primordial code functioned through interactions between amino acids and cognate triplets that resided within amino-acid-binding RNA molecules. The experimental observations underlying this theory are that short RNA molecules (aptamers) selected from random sequence mixtures by amino-acid-binding were significantly enriched with cognate triplets for the respective amino acids. "
And later again:
"On the whole, it appears that the aptamer experiments, although suggestive, fail to clinch the case for the stereochemical theory of the code."
So, yes, it's not the favoured theory but it's not rubbish either. People have taken it seriously and checked it out.
Anyway, the whole paper is a discussion of how the genetic 'code' arose through unguided processes.
And yes, the author does include this passage near the end:
"At the heart of this problem is a dreary vicious circle: what would be the selective force behind the evolution of the extremely complex translation system before there were functional proteins? And, of course, there could be no proteins without a sufficiently effective translation system. A variety of hypotheses have been proposed in attempts to break the circle but so far none of these seems to be sufficiently coherent or enjoys sufficient support to claim the status of a real theory."
So, an acknowledgement that the problem hasn't been 'solved' but it is also clear that no one is throwing in the towel and that work is continuing. As you would expect.
At 12:54 PM,
Joe G said…
But why not check it out? Why decide something is impossible without making some attempt at seeing if it's possible.
I checked it out and it fails the test of science.
And I want them to keep working on it. Only then will they see the futility of their ways. They would have a better chance at showing that nature produce Stonehenge then they will showing that nature produced the genetic code.
At 1:18 PM,
Joe G said…
You have to remember/ consider that this all allegedly happened for no reason, ie it just did. For no reason nature not only produced the code but also the parts and processes required to carry it out in a biologically relevant way.
It all just happened because it did.
All science so far...
At 4:34 PM,
JV said…
I checked it out and it fails the test of science.
No one person can be the arbiter of what is and what is not science.
And I want them to keep working on it. Only then will they see the futility of their ways. They would have a better chance at showing that nature produce Stonehenge then they will showing that nature produced the genetic code.
I'm sure there will keep working on it. And we shall see what they come up with. I prefer not to prejudge possible outcomes.
You have to remember/ consider that this all allegedly happened for no reason, ie it just did. For no reason nature not only produced the code but also the parts and processes required to carry it out in a biologically relevant way.
Not if there is some chemical dependencies. That point was made in one of the papers.
Besides, how could you arbitrarily pick a genetic 'code' and have it work? It can't be the case that any old 'code' would work. And, if that is the case, then there must be some chemical affinities for certain combinations.
If you can come up with another, completely independent, genetic 'code' that can perform the same functions then I think you'd have a point. Can you do that?
It all just happened because it did.
I think it's clear that no one is saying that. Researchers are trying to find an explanation.
No one is saying they have THE answer. But researchers are hypothesising and experimenting (when applicable) and trying to tease out possible answers. They are coming up with ideas and putting them up in public for their colleagues and fellows to consider and criticise. As they should. You might think some of their efforts are futile but how can you be sure? And, more importantly, have you got a better explanation? One that can stand the scrutiny of the scientific community? And, if so, where have you raised it up for scrutiny? Can you answer the follow-on questions for any idea you propose?
At 5:04 PM,
Joe G said…
Science requires the claims made to be testable. Period. End of story.
And no one says there won't be any chemical dependencies. It isn't magic.
Arbitrary, in this case, refers to the fact it is NOT determined by physics or chemistry. That is the same as Morse code.
Look, without the genetic code you don't have a living organism. You cannot get to the code via the imagined RNA world. There isn't any connection. Nature would be OK with just replicating RNAs until all the resources were used.
Yes, I have a better explanation- the only one that fits the science- Intelligent Design.
Every observation and experience says that codes only come from intelligent agencies. No one has ever observed nor has experience with nature producing codes. No one knows how to test the claim. Therefor given Sir Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning the only scientific inference is the genetic code was intelligently designed.
At 3:01 AM,
JV said…
Science requires the claims made to be testable. Period. End of story.
And one of the papers I pointed out had 'testable' in the title!! Why do you think the proposals being tested are not testable?
And no one says there won't be any chemical dependencies. It isn't magic.
Arbitrary, in this case, refers to the fact it is NOT determined by physics or chemistry. That is the same as Morse code.
So, no one says there won't be any chemical dependencies but it's arbitrary. Those are contradictory statements. If there are chemical dependencies then it's not purely arbitrary.
Look, without the genetic code you don't have a living organism. You cannot get to the code via the imagined RNA world. There isn't any connection. Nature would be OK with just replicating RNAs until all the resources were used.
That last bit is just an assertion, a hypothesis that researchers are testing. As they should do.
Every observation and experience says that codes only come from intelligent agencies.
Every observation and experience says that codes only come from human agencies since we haven't found any other intelligences capable of doing that kind of work. And human agents leave behind subsidiary evidence. So, you've got to establish what kind of intelligence you are talking about.
No one has ever observed nor has experience with nature producing codes.
No one has observed a non-human intelligent agent producing codes!!
I say nature produced DNA. I say that is the best explanation since it involves the least amount of special pleading, i.e. non-human intelligences and/or pan spermia and/or time travel, etc.
No one knows how to test the claim.
I disagree, that is exactly what researchers are doing!! They are seeing if there is a plausible pathway by testing the various sub-paths to see if they work.
Therefor[e] given Sir Isaac Newton's four rules of scientific reasoning the only scientific inference is the genetic code was intelligently designed.
Well, if you've got a better explanation and methodology then you should be doing that work and publishing it.
At 6:46 AM,
Joe G said…
And one of the papers I pointed out had 'testable' in the title!!
And yet NO ONE knows how to test the claim that nature can produce codes.
So, no one says there won't be any chemical dependencies but it's arbitrary
Clearly you have limited thinking capacity.
If there are chemical dependencies then it's not purely arbitrary.
LoL! Again- there aren't any chemical nor physical determinants for the mRNA codon representing the amino acid glutamine.
Nature would be OK with just replicating RNAs until all the resources were used.
That last bit is just an assertion, a hypothesis that researchers are testing
Make your case. You don't get to baldly spew "assertion"
Every observation and experience says that codes only come from human agencies since we haven't found any other intelligences capable of doing that kind of work.
And if humans couldn't have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Nature doesn't magically get the ability because humans weren't around.
And human agents leave behind subsidiary evidence.
We have that with respect to ID
So, you've got to establish what kind of intelligence you are talking about.
Something other than human, obviously
No one has observed a non-human intelligent agent producing codes!!
Sir Isaac's four rules. Your ignorance of science is meaningless.
I say nature produced DNA.
No one cares. You don't have any way to test your claim.
I say that is the best explanation since it involves the least amount of special pleading,
It is pure special pleading from start to finish.
I disagree, that is exactly what researchers are doing!!
Great, then you should be able to say and yet you can't.
Well, if you've got a better explanation and methodology then you should be doing that work and publishing it.
Your position doesn't have anything beyond speculation based on a need.
At 7:11 AM,
Joe G said…
There still is no physical or chemical determination between the mRNA codon and the amino acid it represents. For example no one knows why the mRNA codon CAG represents the amino acid glutamine
At 9:57 AM,
JV said…
And yet NO ONE knows how to test the claim that nature can produce codes.
I don't think that assertion is true at all! Again, there is lots of research into parts of plausible ways that could happen. Researchers come up with ideas and then they test them.
LoL! Again- there aren't any chemical nor physical determinants for the mRNA codon representing the amino acid glutamine.
And yet even the paper you linked to admitted that there was some evidence for that very thing.
Make your case. You don't get to baldly spew "assertion"
You asserted that "Nature would be OK with just replicating RNAs until all the resources were used" but you presented no evidence or data that that is true. And since I haven't seen any I take it as an assertion.
And if humans couldn't have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency. Nature doesn't magically get the ability because humans weren't around.
What intelligent agency? No one is saying nature magically gets the ability, they're saying it looks more and more clear that nature did it. Because of the volumes of evidence backing up several threads of reasoning.
And human agents leave behind subsidiary evidence.
We have that with respect to ID
For example? Anything physical?
Something other than human, obviously
Such as? Something that's not around now I guess since we haven't seen or heard from them.
No one has observed a non-human intelligent agent producing codes!!
Sir Isaac's four rules. Your ignorance of science is meaningless.
It's still true that we have no experience of creatures other than humans creating codes. And, you could be wrong. Any scientist has to admit that.
No one cares. You don't have any way to test your claim.
It's being tested all the time.
It is pure special pleading from start to finish.
Not at all; it's based on repeatable research that has been openly published and put up to scrutiny for other scientists and people like us to attempt to tear down.
Great, then you should be able to say and yet you can't.
Take any good college level book on evolution and check the volumes of references. And then check the references in those references. And again for another layer.
Well, if you've got a better explanation and methodology then you should be doing that work and publishing it.
Your position doesn't have anything beyond speculation based on a need.
Does that mean you haven't got a better explanation and/or methodology backed up by some work and research?
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
I don't care what you believe. Your scientists are stupid if they can't even produce what nature did without even trying.
You cannot say anything. All you can do is bluff.
Intelligent Design is the better explanation. The methodology used is Newton's four rules.
Your ignorance of science is not an argument. Your inability to say how to test the claim is all I need to show that you don't know jack about it.
ID has support from several different scientific venues. Your position has the hope of bullshitters
At 10:57 AM,
Joe G said…
There still is no physical or chemical determination between the mRNA codon and the amino acid it represents. For example no one knows why the mRNA codon CAG represents the amino acid glutamine
At 11:00 AM,
Joe G said…
Rule 1 We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions
Per rules 1 & 2 all codes come from intelligent agencies and only from intelligent agencies.
Science 101
At 4:27 PM,
JV said…
I don't care what you believe. Your scientists are stupid if they can't even produce what nature did without even trying.
Nature doesn't 'try'. The scientists are breaking down their possible explanations and are testing them. That's science surely.
You cannot say anything. All you can do is bluff.
As I said, buy any good introductory textbook on evolution, read it, read the references, read the references in the references, read the references in the references in the references, etc.
Intelligent Design is the better explanation. The methodology used is Newton's four rules.
Let's look at that shall we? Rule 1: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Most (as in over 95%) of biological scientists believe that unguided, natural processes are sufficient to explain not only the diversity of life but also its origins. And, just to say, introducing a non-human designer without prior evidence of its existence . . . is that 'true' in Newton's sense?
Rule 2 Therefore to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.
Notice the emphasis on 'natural effects'.
That means we won't introduce some other explanations that don't meet rule 1. And since we have no experience of intelligent agencies aside from humans . . .
Rule 3 The qualities of bodies, which admit neither intensification nor remission of degrees, and which are found to belong to all bodies within the reach of our experiments, are to be esteemed the universal qualities of all bodies whatsoever.
That sounds like: pick the most parsimonious explanation.
Rule 4 In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions inferred by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, not withstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined, till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions
Okay, so we shouln't assume some undetected and unobserved force or cause unless there is an exception which clarifies the situation beyond all reasonable doubt.
The DNA code arose from natural causes,unless you can show, unarguably, that natural causes are insufficient or that another explanation is 'better' and 'better' matches the previous rules. And, by most mesures, that hasn't happened. And, even if you have doubts, it's clear we aren't completely sure of what natural and unguided processes are capable of. So . . .
Per rules 1 & 2 all codes come from intelligent agencies and only from intelligent agencies.
All codes we have experience of come from human agents. That's the reall conclusion.
Your ignorance of science is not an argument. Your inability to say how to test the claim is all I need to show that you don't know jack about it.
The hypotheses are being tested.
ID has support from several different scientific venues. Your position has the hope of bullshitters
Not as much as evolutionary theory.
There still is no physical or chemical determination between the mRNA codon and the amino acid it represents. For example no one knows why the mRNA codon CAG represents the amino acid glutamine
Again, even the paper you linked to admitted that there was some evidence. If you're going to argue against your own 'support' then I think you'd best be more specific.
At 7:52 PM,
Joe G said…
I have read the books. I have read the papers. That is why I say what I do.
Most (as in over 95%) of biological scientists believe that unguided, natural processes are sufficient to explain not only the diversity of life but also its origins.
So what? They can't even test the claim.
Notice the emphasis on 'natural effects'.
Right, artifacts are not created by supernatural effects.
The DNA code arose from natural causes,
Um, DNA isn't the code. And you can't even test that claim.
Look, you clearly have difficulty with science.
100% of our observations and experiences say that codes only come from intelligent agencies- agencies that exist in nature and therefor meet Newton's qualification.
Nothing says that nature can produce codes let alone the components required to carry them out.
Your position requires unknown numbers of just-so bullshit and because of that is far from parsimonious.
All codes we have experience of come from human agents.
Oh my, you are dense.
Again, if it couldn't have been humans then the logical step to make is say it had to be some other intelligent agency. You have to be a complete imbecile to abandon everything we know cuz you don't like what the evidence says.
ID has support from several different scientific venues. Your position has the hope of bullshitters
Not as much as evolutionary theory.
1- The isn't a scientific theory of evolution
2- Even given starting populations of prokaryotes you still don't have a mechanism capable of producing eukaryotes
There still is no physical or chemical determination between the mRNA codon and the amino acid it represents. For example no one knows why the mRNA codon CAG represents the amino acid glutamine
Again, even the paper you linked to admitted that there was some evidence
Nope. Speculation isn't evidence.
At 8:02 PM,
Joe G said…
I don't care what you believe. Your scientists are stupid if they can't even produce what nature did without even trying.
Nature doesn't 'try'.
That's what I said. See, you can't even read.
And THAT is also the whole point. You expect people to believe nature did it just because it did. It just happened as some imaginary just-so cascade of physics, chemistry and the ever magical emergence.
All the while everything we know about nature says it doesn't do that kind of stuff. Nature tends towards the path of least resistance. Spiegelman's Monster is testimony to that in a relevant manner.
At 5:24 AM,
JV said…
I have read the books. I have read the papers. That is why I say what I do.
Then why do you keep asking questions that have already been answered?
So what? They can't even test the claim.
The claims are being tested AND published every day. And anyone else can challenge a result and test it themselves.
100% of our observations and experiences say that codes only come from intelligent agencies- agencies that exist in nature and therefor meet Newton's qualification.
100% of our observations and experiences say that codes only come from intelligent HUMAN agents. We have zero experience or knowledge of any other intelligent agents capable of such feats.
Nothing says that nature can produce codes let alone the components required to carry them out.
I think there's lots of evidence to suggest nature can do that.
Your position requires unknown numbers of just-so bullshit and because of that is far from parsimonious.
It's not just so BS, work is being done, hypotheses are being generated and tested. No one is just waving their hands and giving up.
Again, if it couldn't have been humans then the logical step to make is say it had to be some other intelligent agency. You have to be a complete imbecile to abandon everything we know cuz you don't like what the evidence says.
What kind of agent? Where are they? How come we have no experience of them?
Nope. Speculation isn't evidence.
It wasn't speculation!
And THAT is also the whole point. You expect people to believe nature did it just because it did. It just happened as some imaginary just-so cascade of physics, chemistry and the ever magical emergence.
Not true at all. That's why there are volumes of research and experimentation to try and figure out how it might have occurred.
All the while everything we know about nature says it doesn't do that kind of stuff.
Who says we know everything we need to know about the laws of nature? Besides, the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests nature is indeed capable of that kind of stuff.
At 11:22 AM,
Joe G said…
The questions have not been answered.
The claims are not being tested. You are a liar
There aren't any testable hypotheses for blind and mindless processes. You are a liar.
It is all speculation and you cannot show otherwise.
We don't have any experience with the builders an designers of Stonehenge.
What I said is true and you cannot show otherwise.
And no, you lying bitch, there isn't any evidence that says nature is indeed capable.
So look, clearly you are just a deluded liar. Go fuck yourself until you can find the science to support your asinine claims.
At 11:23 AM,
Joe G said…
Yes, your scientific ignorance is amusing. If humans could not have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency.
Thankfully you are not a scientist nor an investigator.
At 12:07 PM,
JV said…
The questions have not been answered.
Lots of the BIG questions have not been answered but a) some of yours have been answered and b) research and work is going on to try and figure out the parts we don't yet know.
The claims are not being tested. You are a liar
Anyone can see that hypotheses are being proposed and tested and the work is being published and is available for anyone to scrutinise and attack or attempt to replicate.
There aren't any testable hypotheses for blind and mindless processes. You are a liar.
They're easy enough to find.
It is all speculation and you cannot show otherwise.
No, there is real research and experimentation behind the published works.
We don't have any experience with the builders an designers of Stonehenge.
We know there were humans around at the time. We know what kind of tools they had. We've found broken and used tools at and around sites like Stonehenge and Avebury (which is even bigger). There are scores of standing stone monuments all over the British Isles. We can make educated guesses of how they moved and configured the monuments (in fact, Stonehenge was built in phases so it's clear that the Aubrey holes came first and then served as guides for further construction and alignment). What purpose they served will never be known for sure because of the lack of written records but it doesn't mean we can't continue to do measurements and look for parallels at other sites. Also, work with other neolithic cultures can give some insight into what kind of belief systems were common. Finally, it is possible to 'test' any ideas of construction techniques by having a go and seeing if it works.
What I said is true and you cannot show otherwise.
You can believe what you like but the evidence and data and publications tell a different story.
And no, you lying bitch, there isn't any evidence that says nature is indeed capable.
From where I come from, when someone starts using abusive language it means they know they've lost the argument.
So look, clearly you are just a deluded liar. Go fuck yourself until you can find the science to support your asinine claims.
Already found the science!! Lots of it.
Yes, your scientific ignorance is amusing. If humans could not have done it then we infer it was some other intelligent agency.
No other intelligent agents with that capability have ever been found. So, we look for explanations using the causes we know to be present at the time. Just like Newton said, don't invoke causes which you don't know exist.
Thankfully you are not a scientist nor an investigator.
Are you?
At 1:09 PM,
Joe G said…
Lots of the BIG questions have not been answered but a) some of yours have been answered
Liar- I noticed you failed to provide any evidence for that claim
They're easy enough to find.
Waiting...
We know there were humans around at the time
So what? Where are the stone cutting tools? Where are the transportation devices? Where are the plans?
And thank you for proving my point. We use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to form our scientific inferences
If people were looking for a naturalistic origin for Stonehenge- it is just stones, after all- would you think that was scientific research?
You can believe what you like but the evidence and data and publications tell a different story.
Liar
Already found the science!! Lots of it.
Liar. You can't even read for comprehension.
No other intelligent agents with that capability have ever been found.
There is plenty of evidence for at least one other. The planet is such evidence. The laws that govern the physical universe are such evidence. Then there is biology. Your side has nothing to explain any of it.
You don't have a cause/ mechanism capable of producing anything but a mess.
And yes, I have been both a scientist and an investigator. 5+ decades of investigations.
At 4:57 PM,
JV said…
Liar- I noticed you failed to provide any evidence for that claim
Take any good university level evolution textbook, read it, read all the references, read all the references in the references, read all the references in the refrences in the refrences, etc.
Waiting...
If you're too lazy to do a simple internet search then I question your interest in understanding all the evidence.
So what? Where are the stone cutting tools?
They used bone and stone chisels.
Where are the transportation devices?
They probably used log rollers and a lot of human labour. That would work anyway so it's a plausible explanation.
Where are the plans?
As I mentioned regarding Stonehenge: there are stages of construction which can be interpreted as 'plans', that is, early phases led to later phases.
And thank you for proving my point. We use our knowledge of cause and effect relationships to form our scientific inferences
A design requires a designer. If there were no designers around then there could not have been design.
If people were looking for a naturalistic origin for Stonehenge- it is just stones, after all- would you think that was scientific research?
I would say they were ignoring the evidence which includes quite a lot aside from just the structure itself.
Liar
You are in an extreme minority.
Liar. You can't even read for comprehension.
It's okay with me if you choose to ignore evidence but don't claim to be doing science.
There is plenty of evidence for at least one other. The planet is such evidence.
There are billions of planets in the universe.
The laws that govern the physical universe are such evidence.
How so?
Then there is biology.
Huh? If we know anything about life it's that it evolves based on external, natural conditions. In other words, life fine tunes itself to the environment where it exists.
Your side has nothing to explain any of it.
Hardly. The physicists are getting better and better at defining and explaining the various stages of the universe since the big bang. The physics dictates the chemistry. The chemistry explains a lot of what happened after that. Not everything, not yet anyway. But the work is ongoing and still producing results and explanations.
You don't have a cause/ mechanism capable of producing anything but a mess.
We'll just have to disagree I guess.
And yes, I have been both a scientist and an investigator. 5+ decades of investigations.
What are your research topics and publications?
At 9:31 AM,
Joe G said…
OK so all you have are lies, lies AND MORE DAMN LIES.
There aren't any other planets like earth. Or if there are they are very rare.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the earth.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing the laws that govern the universe.
You don't have a mechanism capable of producing life.
You don't have anything beyond your lies and bullshit.
You are a liar and bluffing loser.
Good luck with that.
BTW, EVERYTHING that we know about Stonehenge came from CENTURIES of study. And we still do not know who, how nor why.
Post a Comment
<< Home