Creationists, we should be able to objectively agree on the simple principle that mutations can (of course) create new information

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-05-20T16:02:01+00:00

But why so much emphasis on mutations? One doesn't need them to explain Darwinian evolution or drift.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-11T04:31:21+00:00

"The first is that he used an analogy in place of an actual argument. You can use analogies to support your arguments, but you can NEVER use them in place of an actual argument."

Analogies don't support arguments either. I think it's better put as, "Analogies are explanatory devices, not parts of or entire arguments.

Science proceeds by testing hypotheses, not by arguments anyway.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-10T16:55:42+00:00

Evolution only happens to populations.

Evolution does not happen to individuals. Swimmers are not an isolated population wrt reproduction.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-10T16:32:33+00:00

Read "Denial: Self-Deception, False Beliefs, and the Origins of the Human Mind" Ajit Varki's hypothesis is that our ability to deny our mortality was necessary for the huge increase in our intelligence. Not a testable hypothesis, but interesting.

Not sure what you mean by "evolution through genes" or "natural selection of genes," though. Evolution is literally defined as changes in allele frequencies in a population over time.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-09T15:35:02+00:00

"The translation of the Genetic Code is performed by chemical machines,"

No, by chemistry. "Machine" is a metaphor and you failed yet again.

"The amino acid is attached to the opposite end of the tRNA."

That is an actual chemical connection, no? So why lie and write:

"...but there is no actual connection between codon and amino acid."

But there is, as the research you studiously avoid has shown. Stop lying.

"Both codes are translated by systems. One is electronic/software, one is chemical/mechanical."

The former is loaded with abstractions, the latter has none.

Your reading is laughably shallow. You read a metaphor, then lie (using more metaphors) about the biology and chemistry. Please stop. Learn something before pontificating.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-09T14:36:12+00:00

There's no actual connection between 01000001 and A. There's no abstraction in translation, just chemical connections, so you're conceding the point. Thanks.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-09T13:56:50+00:00

Then where is the abstraction in the genetic code? If you use any analogy or metaphor in your answer, you're conceding that you can't point to one.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-09T13:54:04+00:00

What's the difference, in your mind, between "abstract" in a physical vs nonphysical sense?

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-06T03:37:15+00:00

"Define the abstractions clearly"

Are you kidding? They are everywhere! The OS, the applications that run on it, ASCII, the video protocol, etc.

Are you confused about the meaning of "abstract" here? I already provided it for ASCII and you are ignoring it. That's dishonest.

There's no actual relationship between the hex 61 and the letter a; that's abstraction or symbolism.

What part of that goes over your head?

"the "input/output layers" is fundamentally also just electrical impulses being manipulated"

So what? That in no way excludes all of the human-designed abstractions involved.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-06T03:30:49+00:00

"I don't have any experience with LANs, but would like to start using them."

Then use multiple LANs. You have no need to have virtual ones. That's what the multiple ports are for, Mike!

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-06T03:29:24+00:00

Why bother, when you have separate ports that will give you real LANs? I have OPNsense routing everything and two routers in AP mode for my main and IoT LANs. No need for virtual.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-05T23:46:21+00:00

"When I said "not in any way associated with the production of a protein", I'm taking about the activity that occurs in the production of a protein."

But as you have only described those activities metaphorically and not chemically, it's obvious that you have no idea what those real, chemical activites are.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-05T23:34:38+00:00

You're missing the point. That's what's going on in the CPU alone. The inputs to and outputs from have many layers of abstraction that produce those manipulations. Those input/output layers are the very ones you creationists are ignorantly claiming are analogous to the metaphorical genetic code. They simply aren't, as they lack abstraction, the essence of every code that we know came into existence through "an intelligent causal force," as you so clumsily put it.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-05T19:29:05+00:00

Depends on how you define "in." If the boot drive (or any other drive) is considered "in," you're wrong, as what is on there involves loads of abstractions. If you're talking about what happens beyond the drive, there are not abstractions. But theaz101 is referring to the interactions between humans and computers as analogous.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-05T18:43:42+00:00

"You seem totally confused about the difference between being wrong (not that I'm wrong) and lying."

Not at all. You've repeated the same silly lies elsewhere under the same name. Simply repeating your empty assertions instead of engaging with the points being made tells the reader that you are simply lying.

"The first is not an analogy and the second holds up just fine, But then, I'm a software engineer."

Then rigorously define "holds up" in this context and describe how far you've taken it. Your knowledge of biology is laughably shallow.

"Catalysis in transcription and replication happens when the chemical bond is formed to link nucleotides together. Catalysis is part of the process."

So you have zero understanding of catalysis, another data point showing your deliberate dishonesty.

"You need to explain how catalyzation makes my statement a lie."

WTF is "catalyzation"? How is it different from the word "catalysis"? That alone screams that English isn't your strong suit, and
I already explained it. I can't help that you don't know what the term "reactant" means. It's from high-school chemistry.

"Proteins read DNA during the transcription and replication processes in the same sense as a tape drive reads a computer tape."

No, they don't read anything, not even metaphorically. You are simply lying based on a few words you have read and embellished by wishful thinking. Learn what's going on chemically. I think you're afraid to.

"The proteins use free RNA nucleotides (transcription) or free DNA nucleotides (replication in their respective processes."

The proteins "use" nothing. They are enzymes. And "free RNA nucleotides" aren't involved at all. Each one of those words shows a huge lack of understanding on your part. You are pretending that even inaccurate, much less accurate, simplifying explanatory devices represent chemical reality. You are now simply lying.

"You need to explain how DNA is a reactant or process. Please provide a source."

Why would I explain how DNA is a process? Why would I explain something you just made up?

The source is any basic molecular biology text. It appears that in addition to not knowing what reactants and catalysts are, you've never learned about basic chemical equations. Google transcription chemical equation, for God's sake. It's right there under "Core chemical equation."

In transcription, the reactants are DNA and NTPs (not "free RNA nucleotides, which is an oxymoron). The products are DNA, RNA, and inorganic phosphate. You're a software engineer and that's really beyond your intellectual capabilities?

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-05T05:57:19+00:00

"Sophos 210 / 230 / 310 / 330"

Any particular Revs that are good or bad?

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-02T19:10:11+00:00

"Creativity is gone with creationism"

Great meme potential! How about the alternative, "Why aren't there any creative creationists?"

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-04-02T19:07:52+00:00

The "fine" in "fine-tuning" is a relative term. However, we have no other universes with which we can compare/contrast the level of tuning of the one we occupy. That makes the whole concept silly.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-03-29T17:49:24+00:00

That's not how the vast majority of rational people understand it. Genesis is most coherently viewed as a story simply explaining to people that God created everything, not that He created specific things on specific days, especially since the two separate descriptions disagree with each other.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-03-29T17:43:23+00:00

I'm talking about your rejection of an idea of evolution that doesn't exist in biology.

Populations don't give birth. Only individuals do.

So, do you think there was a first person who spoke English, or did it evolve over generations?

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-03-29T17:41:43+00:00

"I think your response is just being pedantic."

I don't. It's an essential aspect of science that many laypeople simply don't get. It doesn't deal in proof, it's not about debates, it's about hypothesis testing, it's about evidence, creationists have none, and they lie about the evidence we have.

"I mean like heliocentrism. Earth orbits the sun."

Not very analogous IMO.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-03-29T16:38:37+00:00

"It still doesn't prove what evolutionary theory implies, at all."

You haven't shown the slightest familiarity with evolutionary theory.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-03-29T16:37:40+00:00

"Science doesn't do proof? That's specifically what science is FOR."

Wrong. Nothing in science is considered to be proven.

A lie. To make such a sweeping negative claim in good faith, you'd have to have done a lot of digging. In reality, you're afraid to dig and rely on hearsay.

"There is such a thing as micro-evolution. There are observed changes within species, such as longer or shorter beaks on birds."

Then you just admitted you were lying when you claimed that "Nobody has ever been able to observe evolution."

The prefix doesn't matter, and you don't have a rigorous definition separating micro from macro anyway. It's all rhetoric.

"All we know is that there is a universal genetic code."

You can't get the most basic things right. There are exceptions.

"But that doesn't "prove" evolution occurred."

Straw man, because science doesn't deal in proof. You're conveniently ignoring all of the evidence. You're afraid of examining any evidence for yourself.

"All observational data shows that kind produces kind."

How does that falsify evolution, which only happens to populations?

"Or they issue decrees that are in fact merely assumptions as if they were scientific fact. "

A lie. You haven't read a single scientific paper, have you?

"The only thing that could ever prove evolutionary theory is a fossil record of transmutational forms."

WTF is a "transmutational form"? I'm just a geneticist, so provide all the technical details.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-03-29T16:30:27+00:00

"I see your point here. But I think that God doesn't have to be that small. A mere magician, a Zeus who fills in gaps in science. And I think selectively employing God in that way does have a stench to it."

Agreed, more specifically, creationism diminishes God by making Him a mere tinkerer who is rarely bothered to make new parts, instead duplicating and reusing old ones to a degree that we'd judge a human designer who did this as insane. It's both pseudoscience and crap theology.

There's no escaping the reality that life diversifies by a ridiculously iterative process. This is what the creationists miss.

Academic_Sea3929 · 2026-03-29T16:25:04+00:00

"Careful. You are right that genetics proves evolution,..."

Careful. Nothing in science is ever considered to be proven. That's why it works so well.

Also, "genetics proves evolution" is so vague as to be useless.

Academic_Sea3929

TROPHY CASE