a few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
@Perry:
Let me try something... when you say this:
" DNA information requires a complex decoding machine, the ribosome, but the instructions to build ribosomes are on the DNA - How Did That Just Happen?"
What do you mean by "How did that just happen"? Surely you don't mean "suddenly" - after all, everyone here has been emphasizing the time element involved with evolution. Do you mean "randomly"? By "luck"? "Chance"?
MMM
a few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
@Apognophos,
You are very patient.
MMM
a few weeks ago, discoveries were made that show that there is another dna code language that rides on top of the already incredibly complex 4-letter code previously discovered.
this newly discovered code apparently regulates how genes work.
as i noted in a previous thread, the amount of data storage available in the dna storage system just the size of a pin-head would filll a stack of books stacked from your driveway to the moon .... 500 times!
Perry,
Evolution is not random. It is an algorithm. The algorithm itself is surpisingly simple, and amazingly effective. It can be modeled quite easily:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fp9kzoAxsA4
As far as "irreducibly complex" - don't overlook the fact that intermetiate steps can be introduced to help an "irreducibly complex" machine come about. The talkorigins.org archive has a good example. This is an irreducibly complex bridge. Take one piece away and the function fails. It doens't matter what piece you take away, the bridge will fail:
And here are the steps:
And finally:
MMM
launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
"Most of us are here b/c we are not going to shut up and go away. Did YOU go away and shut up? NO you started the biggest Xjws board on the net. Maybe you have forgotten what we all came here for?"
Starting a forum is very very very INCREDIBLY different than trying to change the situation by law. You don't have to leave the WT "alone" and "just SHUT UP AND GO AWAY"; however, trying to create a petition to get some sort of legal action 1) won't work, and 2) if it did, would have incredibly bad side-effects.
MMM
launch an investigation on jehovahs witnesses religious policy that violates human rights and abuses religious freedom.
link.
" It's a real irony that they're violating human rights by their cruel policies while they're making petitions to the K-Gov. for them to be treated better in human rights."
What "human right" are they violating? Can you define it?
MMM
is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
The case of the missing A.T. Johnson could indeed be due to a disfellowshipping; I know that photos have been altered or replaced when they contain people that get DFed (like a kid who was used because he was considered a good example of a young Witness, who then turned out not to be :-). It could also be something as mundane as needing to keep the index to a certain number of pages and thinking, "No one is going to want to look up this Johnson guy from 1989".
I think he was DFed... :) There were two other guys mentioned in the articles. Their index entry wasn't removed between 2011 and 12.
BTW, how is your big project going? :)
MMM
is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
@babystar_jr:
You got it!
MMM
is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
@LQ: Got it! Sendspace was giving me issues there for a while, but it finally uploaded.
Sending link now in PM...
MMM
is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
@slii:
Great story.
As it turns out, the NWT compare project did show the full extent of the differences - and they are extensive. However, there have been some benefits out of it. For example, we knew going into it that the NWT translation committee decided to drop brackets around words they inserted for "clarity" in the 1983 version. The diff log in the database could be used to see a list of all the words that were previously bracketed in the 1983 version, but now are no longer bracketed.
Comparing the JW texts from different years might be a useful tool here too.
And that is why I changed my focus the WTLIB itself. From year-to-year, other than the new documents (because you expect that to be different), what changes? That is an interesting question indeed.
...so I proposed that we schedule the meetings beforehand. I think they just might have read a bit too much into that :-)
Ha ha... are they coming all the time now to study that book? They should - someone could report a Bible study on their time card.
MMM
is anyone aware if this project is already being done by someone?
if not, perhaps we can brainstorm how to go about this, now that the pdf for the revised nwt is out.
a couple initial impressions:.
@leaving_quietly:
I can upload my database again. The sendspace link expired. The DB is about 135 MB. It contains both versions, and all the diff lists. It also contains the HTML markup of the diffs in verse-by-verse form and well as in book form.
It is not MySQL, however. It is SQL Server 2008. Are you ok with that?
MMM
