|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: a poison for anti-evolution ID theorists | |||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Since DNA facilitates the production of proteins, and groups of proteins are what build the various systems organisms, I am assuming by "family of proteins" that he means a group of proteins necessary to produce a system.
It is easy enough to change a system into something else by simply removing or introducing the production of certain proteins into an already existing "protein family." A "NEW" "family of proteins" would then (and again I was running with an assumption) be a wholly new group of proteins that results in the production of a brand new system or observable phenotype not existing in the organism before that time. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Gemster Inactive Member |
the only thing simple is your statement that biological chemistry is simple. I've been told that it is a fallacy to appeal to authority but I shall do it anyway. scientists have been trying to make simple life in the lab for a long time with no success, because the fact is that a simple cell is more complex than the space shuttle....
Klaus Dose:More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance." [From Interdisciplinary Science Review 13(1988):348-56.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I don't understand the point of your quote. Try it as simple logic (I know you're fuzzy on the logic, but we'll try it anyway.)
Is it your argument that: 1)Scientists have yet to understand all that there is to know about life;therefore 2)The Bible is the literal Word of God? I don't see how one follows from the other. Maybe you can help me out?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Niw Inactive Member |
Thought it was very old news... anyways...
Synthesis of polio virus... BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | First synthetic virus created
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Gemster Inactive Member |
synthesis sounds like a horrible lot of human intervention.
Did I mention the bible? what my origins quote meant was that if life is so simple then why can't anyone manufacture any?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
what my origins quote meant was that if life is so simple then why can't anyone manufacture any? Maybe because life isn't simple, but rather, so complex that intelligent design isn't up to the challenge? After all, you have to admit this doesn't look good for ID. If intelligent design is the source of life, the first time, then the second time around it should be even easier. Our consistent failure to create life through intelligent design is pretty much a clear indication to me that life isn't the result of intelligent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Niw Inactive Member |
Define life pls...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Gemster Inactive Member |
So we can't do with intelligence what nature can do by accident, even if we invoke nature to help us. Sorry my friend, not a good theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Rei Member (Idle past 7012 days) Posts: 1546 From: Iowa City, IA Joined: |
It happens with GAs. I use them in work
The very first time Tierra was done, it shortened their starter algorithm to less than a third of its original size. ------------------"Illuminant light, illuminate me."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So we can't do with intelligence what nature can do by accident, even if we invoke nature to help us. Sorry my friend, not a good theory. Maybe then you could explain why engineers are using evolution to design circuit boards and jet airplanes that are superior to the versions created by intelligence? Some of the circuit boards are so complex that we don't entirely understand how they work. I'd say my theory is looking better all the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You sure are talking a lot Gemster, but saying nothing...
My opening post and the entire subject of this thread was a natural and random mutation leading to a new species. Despite the fact that no engineers created this life nor probably could have, nature managed to so all on its own. Yet you come up with this: "So we can't do with intelligence what nature can do by accident, even if we invoke nature to help us. Sorry my friend, not a good theory." Please outline your most excellent theory for the origin of the plant mentioned in the opening post. If you can do this without resorting to evolutionary mechanisms send your theory to the French scientists researching the plant as well. If you can't then explain why we are supposed to believe evolutionary theory is so bad? Scientists used evolutionary theory to track the progress of this plant and pinpoint its source. ID theorists were curiously absent, and apparently want to stay that way. ------------------holmes
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Holmes<< ID theorists seem to come in two sorts, the kind that realize their only real hope is to limit their theory to abiogenesis, and those that are trying to replace evolutionary theory. >>
Please site examples of ID theorists that are trying to replace evolutionary theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Crashfrog<< Our consistent failure to create life through intelligent design is pretty much a clear indication to me that life isn't the result of intelligent design. >>
Two things. First, on what basis do you conclude that scientists of the future won't be able to create life? Second, based on your logic why doesn't the failure to create life via simulating natural processes thought to be at work on the primordial earth indicate to you that life didn't originate via a materialistic process?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Warren Inactive Member |
Holmes<< My opening post and the entire subject of this thread was a natural and random mutation leading to a new species.>>
Warren<< Randomness doesn't qualify as a scientific hypothesis. In order to qualify as a stochastic hypothesis, it necessary to define specifically what type of probability to distribution is being proposed and it is necessary to demonstrate that the distribution assumed is in fact valid. Unless the probability distribution being used is defined and validated, random mutation simply means ‘we don’t know what type of mutation will occur". It is not possible to generate testable predictions with a ‘I don’t know’ distribution assumption. Since there is no testable predictions there is no scientific hypothesis.>> [This message has been edited by Warren, 09-28-2003] [This message has been edited by Warren, 09-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: I'm sorry, Gemster, what was Darwin's problem with the eye?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024