John Cuthber

And, every time the cell reproduces, more of those proteins are made, following instructions coded in DNA. There might be a problem here for abiogenesis, but it's not a problem for evolution and, more importantly, it's not support for the OP's claim that there's not enough information stored in the genome. The red flag was posting lots of things that you can't show are true. Asking us to take them all on faith is equivalent to starting your own religion (regardless of what your intention may have been). You may like it, but it's wrong. As I said, you can watch a frog egg construct a frog without needing to search wiki for the instructions. If you say the information isn't in the DNA, you need to say why you think that, and you need to explain where you think it is.

I am reminded of the most telling question asked of Fleishman and Pons: "Why are you not dead?". They had no answer. If they really had nuclear fusion happening as they had claimed, the neutron flux would have killed them.

No. Aluminium is capable of extracting oxygen from carbon dioxide (in much the same way that it removes the oxygen from iron oxide). "Is aluminum oxide combined with iron oxide reactive thermite?" No.

Is it onomatopoeic?

Please indicate the parts of the apparatus of the cell that are reproduced, but for which there is no corresponding DNA. Now, I accept that, for example, water is a major part of cells, and there's no DNA which (meaningfully) makes water, but it's also hard to see that as the "information" needed to make a cell.

You didn't. It's a quote glitch That's what authority is for. It's to save you the trouble of regurgitating all the stuff you learned during the course of training. It's so that when the doctor says "take these pills" you don't waste his time asking why.

Perhaps Jan Shyla was planning to add some later. It took me 14 hours or so to get round to it. Also, re. Well, that's what authority is for.

In fairness to Jan Shyla, they posted pretty much the same thing I did and I got a couple of rep points for it.

We can start with "Reason 1: The genome does not contain enough information" It seems to be an attempt at proof by loud assertion. As a counterpoint, I will simply state the following proof: it works, so it must transmit the information needed. We can watch the process in other species much more easily. You can readily observe a single fertilized frog's egg growing into a frog (via a tadpole) with no need to nip out of the jam jar to read the instruction manual. All the information is in that egg, and essentially the only plausible location within the egg is the DNA. You might make noises about mitochondrial DNA, but all that does is marginally expand the definition of "genome". I could go on and point out other problems but that's your job. It's a pity you failed to do it. BTW, I'm really hoping you are going to say that God, by some mechanism, provides the additional guidance. Because, if that was true, any gestational defect would be proof of the fallibility of God.

Once again, someone who doesn't understand genetics is saying it's wrong.

Just a thought... I think we all accept that it's ludicrously simplistic to say there's a "gay gene" - it's a combination of genetic and environmental factors but, for simplicity, we can use "gay gene" as a shorthand. So, it's clear that a strict "gay gene" would be a problem for evolution. But what's the story for a gene for " being sexually attracted to women"? Equally, how about the gene for "being sexually attracted to men"? Well, those genes are strongly selected for in some (fairly obvious) circumstances. Men with the first of those genes will be much more successful reproductively than men without it. And women will be more successful if they have the second gene. Now, as I said, that's not really going to be a single gene, but a combination. And it's likely that the individual genetic components of the trait will be repeated- people will have more than one copy of some of the genes responsible. It's also reasonable to imagine the genes involved being activated or deactivated by testosterone or oestrogen And it's plausible that those genes may be distributed throughout the genome. So, genetic shuffling of genes will give rise to various combinations of the "fancies women" and "fancies men" components in all people. Some combinations of those components will lead to homosexuality even though the genes themselves are not related to the "homo". A "fancies men" gene is homosexual in males, but heterosexual in females. You don't need any "gay gene", so there's no need to worry about how it's carried through the generations.

And you assume that the information I got (largely, at the time, from the Official news agency "Tass" who lied repeatedly) is correct and you assume that I watched the film (I didn't) So, I really can't judge it, and you were mistaken to declare, unreservedly, that I could.

Slightly OT but re. "Confucius says: "Man with watch always knows the time. Man with two watches is never sure."" When was the watch invented and when was Confucius writing? Anyway, it's not "practical" to choose bad doctors over good ones- regardless of the likely lengths of their carers. Apart from anything else, the students are (generally) the ones picking up the cost of tuition. The government picks up the cost of poor doctors.

According to you, it doesn't matter. Merely not having any basis doesn't stop me gauging the accuracy of the film. (Because getting the wrong answer doesn't seem to matter) You said I could gauge it anyway. I have repeatedly insisted that I can't, but you won't believe me.

Gauging something wrongly isn't really gauging it- or the term loses any meaning.

Imagine I post a picture of some man and say it looks like my brother. Would you this say to Et Pet Could he gauge it for himself?

Are you deliberately missing the point?

No Just No. Also no.

I tried. Google said https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/sore-throat/

How would you know (see above).

I'm fairly sure that if you want to look at the science of racism (so far as that has a meaning the field you want to look at is psychology (rather than evolution- though that must have been involved too). I think the phrase you need to look for is something like "in group vs out group" because the problem of xenophobia isn't really related to race, ,colour, faith, sexuality, nationality, sports club or anything else in particular. It's down to "like me vs not like me". All I ask you to do is read at least half a dozen varied articles on the issues before you post- otherwise you are likely to get stuff monumentally wrong, and cause grave offense. The safe option, for anyone who doesn't want to risk a few reputation points. is "just don't go there".

I was wondering if anyone was going to ram the point home.

We really don't know what was going on very early in the universe, but we do recognise that, to paraphrase it, energy condensed into matter. Before it was matter, irt wasn't matter :so you have invented an idea of "the change of matter from state 1 to state 2". Was a brick caused by an earlier version of that brick? Or was it caused by a brick factory? You need to think carefully about what you mean by "cause".

Yes, and the people who made those records can judge how realistic the programme is. I didn't make them. I still really can't judge. It's not complicated. It's like asking you if a picture looks like my brother, then saying

That's either tautologically true (and therefore unhelpful) or made up nonsense.