Is ID Scientific? (was "Abusive Assumptions")

I am now amazed that the current claim of evolutions is that abiogenesis is somehow peripheral to the theory. It is simply unbelieveable to hear several people say that.For fifty years one of the central efforts of that community at enormous expense and time investment has tried every avenue imaginable to show that abiogenesis was not just possible but inevitable linking it directly to the formation of amino acids from diamers, to chains to neucleic acids to all the machinery of life observed.Hundreds yea thousands of people and experiments have been tried, Nobel prizes awarded for so called life in the test tube, life on clay substrates all to show there is no problem with life from non-life just natural chemical properties of matter and a source of energy etc.Now that every such effort has failed as utterly and completely as could be imagined and no hope is left.. it becomes very convenient in the face of people thinking, hmmm their entire basis for their theory has no underpinnings whatsoever, so what gives... now you say it was really never important to our theory,, just a little fifty year diversion involving every biology text book currently extant, tens of TV documentaries, scientific series, etc.What hubris, what misrepresentation, what phenomenal untruth!!!Now if you wish to assume that life just appeared at say the so called simple replicator stage and then proceeded by evolution up to the human brain.. go for it. That's a degree of unsubstantiated faith I think people can really pick up on.We could call it the Religion of the Unknown Benefactor.I mean de neuvo appearance of DNA or RNA or such from no cause or process of any real importance by methods undetermined... sounds like religion to me.Great news we can ban abiogenesis at least from all public schools as a religious teaching.. right.

I dont see how to have a rational discussion with someone who dismisses the major emphasis of the displipline from 1920 to 2000 and continuing, ie,someone who refuses to face the failed efforts of his forefathers to account for how the establishment of the basis for his lifes work in micro and maco evolution is hung on thin air and has absolutely no rational credible basis for belief ... a religion then based on faith. If you care to suspend your integrity, intellectual honesty and cannot admit to the true state of affairs past and prresent then it is totally enigmatic how to proceed with any degree of confidence in the honesty of any remarks you might make.The creator was the original designer and interjected the intelligence, knowhow, knowledge etc. onto non-living matter to create every kind of life and the information based adaptability to exist in changing conditions via the molecular processes, machinery and consciousness of thought in the case of humanity.It was therefore unnecessary to intervene except as necessary in his own determination but not in routine biological or physical processes.Does that help?

I sort my replies in order of stupidity so yours generally take a while to address.Gravity is a force which in the case of the river of water causes it to seek a position of constrained equilibrium in agreement with the physical conditions and constraints. The effect is to convert high potential energy into flowing or kinetic energy and finally into a lower potential energy state in the sea or lake. Oh and entropy is increased in the process as the water is in a less organized state in the lake than as snow crystals in the mountains say.Now lakes, water and snow crystals are not quite on topic but I don't mind giving your team a little physics lesson as I have been doing for years since most of your soft science degrees don't get much past the old rub the glass rod with cat fur and pick up a piece of paper.Let me know when things get a little over your head sweety I am really here to help you get a grip.

Electrostatics and quantum mechanics ... hmmm oh I get it when you rubbed that cat fur on the glass rod you thought of the dead or alive cat problem from QM. Wow clever.Engineering Physics and Systems Engineering I wanted to learn everything in those degrees you mentioned plus the knowledge to apply it to something practical useful and real world.Now go ahead and include long division in your posts, its ok

Nope not very quickly although I can almost always understand what I read.I suspect the first is related to the theory of linear algebra and convex spaces, the basis is generally associated with the number of vectors participating in the solution of a system of equations. Honestly my only exposure outside of Engr Math would be a class in Hadleys Linear Programming Class in grad school and six years of developing all sorts of LP and MIP business models as the supervisor of an O.R. group for an energy company. Cardinality I recall is just the number of participating vectors, which could be rows or columns depending on whether one is solving the primal or dual problemAlthough I did make an A in nuclear physics I confess I am not remembering the spin of electrons and other particles up down or "sideways".You said HERE in Oklahoma when insulting our schools where do you teach sweety.

Dismissing me is out of hand is your way of debate and stating your superiority is one way of fallacious reasoning and not useful, its just a big egocentric booster.This hypothesis is of course not unique to me as your knowledge is probably not unique to you.. maybe.Wilder-Smith proposed something like it ten years ago and if you think a guy who ran a large drug reseach company in Europe, wrote several books,published research results extensively in Europe and taught senior lectures all over the world and had 3 earned Phds is not worthy of your superior intellect so be it.Ill formed means not in the jargon you demand, the hyper vocabulary you demand and no amont of logical persuasion can sway you from your dogmatic approach to any one who disagrees with you.I don'tr need your approval there are quite a few respected scientists who are of the same view and that's good enough for me.Stand back and look realistically ... from your camp that's a laugh.

I never said anything that was a suggestive of putting amino acids as substitues for DNA base pairs or such. I was saying that in the DNA molecule and the machinery of life molecules there are essentially no working real, as we find it, examples of such that do not make exclusive use of either L forms of the four amino acids of the code or D form of same or other necessary molecules such as sugars. In any one type of molecule be it an amino acid, an enzyme, a sugar etc the specificity of their purpose and function almost without exception dictate only one optically active form. And if one tries to interject the use of another form in such it will not work whether making a
protein, reading mrna or whatever.As to the accuracy of the copying of the dna molecule and the genetic code which afterall is the method used both to make the enzymes of replication and the enzymes that build those enzymes.The complete replication of the dna by its own information and the cooperative machinery it codes for takes about seven hours to complete some 6,000,000,000 base pairs as to being divided, recognized, transported, read, duplicated, stitched, inspected, repaired and made finally into a new molecule which on average contains a few dozen errors in type or sequence. This in a volume of information storage and retrieval about one one hundred trillionth that of the most current manmade storage and retrieval mechanism.Now as to the code word and the information word the term book of detailed instructions, a dictionary of explicit coded instructions,twelve feet of shelf space for books the size of the Wedsrters New International Dictionary make up the total instructional information in the human genome at the same type size for the four letter of the code. On and on in the evolutionary literature exhaustively driving home the point that the codeis information in codes sequences which have reeal meaning when decoded by etc etc etc.Please refer your criticisms to Chris Wills Professor of Biology at UC San Diego and the roughtly 100 scientists who reviewed, edited and otherwise contributed to his work in "Exons Entrons and Talking Genes" from which the above material references were taken.Thus with a half hour lunch the entire personalattach and silly assertion about how inefficient and error prone the code is and clarifying in childs english the role of saparating functtionally L&D forms of molecules ... well lets say back to the books kiddies.

You really can't read can you. Unbelievable! I gave you the principal source as Dr. Chris Wills book and his entire body of references and the names of his peer review committee for the book one hundred scientific types, ISBN 0-465-05020-4 or Harper Collins title "Exons Entrons and Talking Genes. I am not going to list the index of references, papers, etc. for you as I am not your personal secretary.Do a little homework for once.

Sorry for the typo that one letter must have been the enigmatic puzzle that prompted the acidic comment about no sources... really.Off Topic comments below this. Please do not reply to them.

​

Now don't all of you go team up on poor Chris Wills and all those reviewers about how you're a punk nobody ,turncoat, cluck headed , mentally disturbed ex scientist. I mean poor Chris is just a good scientist , evolutionist and a person capable of truth without losing his entire self esteem, ego and self confidence. He's probably not so paranoid as to believe that disagreement is the root of all evil except of course George Bush, Red State voters, the Supreme Court and what did I miss.

​

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 08-04-2005 05:42 PM

Yes I suspect you will take the easy way out and not review the referenced material.As to the threats they are just typical of the onesided oversight wI find on every such site. I wrote a calm piece to those nice folks and of course did not receive even the courtesy of a reply.That is why you will lose in the court of public opinion too smart to reply to we inferior types.

Proceeding with the discussion without verbal abuse would be nice.I at the posters request set up a hypothesis, corollaries, a predictive element and a falsification statement. Since I was aked to do that many times it would seem fair to get an answer or two back with out just being dismissed out of hand.I further wrote and referenced an evolutionists book in which the description of DNA replication included in depth definition of the "information" content of the DNA molecule in terms of the amount of information in the Webster's New World Dictionary and continued throughout to refer to the genetic code, messages, reading m-rna, coding, etc. making no reference or comparison to other than a semantically understood "alphabet" conveying information to ribosomes and the ribosome reading the codons three at a time starting and stopping when instructed to by additional instructions. I included the ISBN, Title , author and by inclusion his roughly one hundred acknowledgements of his editorial and content advisory team of scientists as well as the extensive references to papers and other works.This description of the DNA replication process is far from unique in that one book but also Origins by Robert Shapiro, encyclopedic entries and The text Biology and ITs Applications with similar editors and references.I am sure these people who are evolutionists do not purposefully use ambigious and confusing terms or outright lies.The accuracy of the replication of the DNA molecule and the storage /unit volume calculations in the former are persuasive of a very accurate code and a highly efficient copying system.I have done what was asked I believe with the thought that at least critical thinking and logical objections in good conscience could be offered.I guess time will tell.

An inaccurate paraphrase .. wrong premise.I said that the only consensus premise proposed from Darwin forward was the naturalistic origon of life from non-living matter. That all reputable scientific investigation for abiogenesis has been carried out by evolutionary scientists of good reputation over roughtly a hundred years. That no scientist of that persuasion ever proposes a supernatural element in their origin of life investigative work.So every textbook in biology, chemistry and essentially all natural sciences contain extensive chapters on abiogenesis, the many contributors, thier results, remaining issues to be resolved; this as well as all NAS literature, pronouncements, et al and all other government funded scientific research groups in the related fields from NASA to Sandia.Further such printed materials whether pop science or textbook will organize the material in the chronilogical sequence of evolutionary events beginning with such as how the universe or the solar system was formed, how the precursors of life wwere formed , how the simplist form of life was probably this or that and how it began to evolve upward in complexity by mutation and natural selection.I have never seen in such material a statement such as "this abiogenesis material is not part of the evolutionary theory or presentation.. its an unrelated peripheral issue. Or instructors may ignore chapters 2 and 3 on the origin of life as they are not essential to the scientific understanding of evolution.Now if one should dicover that say chemical predestination were demonstrable in a universally agree valid experimental procedure under curcumstances universally agreed upon as naturalistic as regards say to a viable first replicator clearly a precursor to say dna......would the evolutionary community say ... so what.. a peripheral event to evolutionary theory.....we are not interested.. that result has no bearing on anyof our research activities.In good conscience I think not it would be trumpeted around the world as the death of God as was the case with several false starts and overblown results of "life in a test tube" etc.Now again my hypothesis is a defined proposal that there is no life ever without the information or logos or teleonomy expressed in the DNA molecule , the genetic code, the molecules of life that work systematically together to make life viable. That the logos, information cannot arise by naturalistic means not ever in the functional DNA molecule by any naturalistic matter only event or series of events.That the examination of life from a purely naturalistic perspective or schema is deficient in that the tools, methods, thought processes, plans and activities as well as the human talent brought to bear will not include the equally and perhaps more important perspective, resources, talents, tools and procedures from the disciplines of information technology, information theory, electrical science such as design of coding systems, networks, programs and the identification, isolation and debugging and repair of malfunction within such.I understand that you have personal disagreement with the concept of biology havin such logos regardless of how it got there .. although I continually am lectured on the reationality of Genetic Algorithms simulating biological /life activites as logos driven discliplines.As to the term hybridization of information or logos onto matter.. I intend to describe those activities which happen every day in the filed of science where the mental concepts, ideas, training, education and experience of the scientist which are precisely cognitive thought arising in their consciousness are by the scientist via the brain and central nervous system made manafest through writings, keyboarding, lab work, etc. and result in taking molecules of materials and manmade equipment and by techniques inform those materials and devices to behave to operate to perform functions thaat they would never be able to do without our logos inspired diretions and actions. We hybridize our logos onto matter and accomplish our planned results for the matter which it could never accomplish otherwise.Example: The windows operating system would never arise on media such as CD's or computer hard drives in any usuable meaningful form.. this we can agree on. But via people like Bill Gates and others their intricate logos or knowledge can be stored in an elegant micromedia format of binary codes and made to perform ..well just about any virtual activity imaginable.. which can be by convention understood and made operative by a three year old child.Now do the various compoonents of the PC have ears, tongues, nerves consciousness etc. Of course not, but the components very effectively understand the binary bits , the code , the information , the instructions that have been taken from human intelligence to a stored version on magnetic media and carry out precisely and reliability the instructions and operations resulting in practical useful understandable actionable outcomes.Intellect has been hybridized onto matter to accomplish tasks that the matter could not possibly ever accomplish on it own by naturalistic processes.Now if I find in life processes a real code residing on but in chemistry and matter and directing other matter to perform real work, real tasks of such complexity as to far exceed any analagous functionality humanity can demonstrate and I know that scientists do precisely acomplish the same starting with their intelligence and "hybridizing it onto matter" and that such activities cannot be in any way shown to develop those abilities alone and naturally and innately then it would seem very logical to conclude that an outside source of intelligence had at the beginning designed that system and "hybridized" it onto the matter. Since that is what a scientist does every day.

Is it possible that you could be posting out of context by not reading the prior posts?The amino acid comment was a wry cynical perhaps comment suggesting that since the four amino acids that are used in the genetic code from the twenty or so that make up proteins in general are exclusively L form in the DNA structure base pairings, that is AGTC. Now if one were to substitute or attempt to substitute n amino acid whose form was dextro into the DNA it would never ever fit, work and code for a particular protein in the position or sequence necessary when such protein was made via the ribosome reading the mrna codon triplet and etc. I did not suggest it could be or should be attempted just that it would not work as an example of the absolute Levo form of the amino acids used in the genetic code AGTC.I would have thought that this group would have immediately known that the replication of 6 billion base pairs in seven hours referred to the human dna molecule without having to spell it out... especially noting my reference to Dr. Wills book on the human genome."It's quite common for natural systems to only work with only one of the enantiomers of an optically active substance. It isn't too difficult to see why that might be. Because the molecules have different spatial arrangements of their various groups, only one of them is likely to fit properly into the active sites on the enzymes they work with."Francis Crick: Francis H. C. Crick, Molecules and Men (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1966), p. 60.It has been well known for many years that for any particular molecule only one hand occurs in nature. For example the amino acids one finds in proteins are always what are called the L or levo amino acids, and never the D or dextro amino acids. Only one of the two mirror possibilities occurs in proteins.15
===============================A. I. Oparin, Life, Its Nature, Origin and Development (New York: Academic Press, 1961), pp. 59, 60.The probability of the formation of one antipode or the other is therefore the same. As the law of averages applies to chemical reactions the appearance of an excess of one antipode is very improbable, and, in fact, we never encounter it under the conditions of non-living nature and in laboratory syntheses . . . .
In living organisms, on the contrary, the amino acids of
naturally occurring proteins are made always have the left-handed configuration. . . . This ability of protoplasm selectively to synthesize and accumulate one antipode alone is called the asymmetry of living material. It is a characteristic feature of all organisms without exception but is absent from inanimate nature.================Linus Pauling, Linus Pauling, General Chemistry (Third Edition) (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co., 1970), p. 774
This is a very puzzling fact . . . . All the proteins that have been investigated, obtained from animals and from plants, from higher organisms and from very simple organisms—bacteria, molds, even viruses — are found to have been made of L-amino acids.
===========================================================
S. E. Bresler, Introduction to Molecular Biology (New York: Academic Press, 1971), pp. 6, 7.How and why the complete separation of stereo isomers in living tissue was started remains an enigma. . . . We can only speculate that this remarkable phenomenon originally occurred as the result of very rare large-scale fluctuations associated with the origin of life.
====================================
My observationA comet with a slight excess of L forms is thin evidence of any natural occurrence of such in the molecules of life, considering statistical confidence in one measurement or sample... questionalble at best. Was it a SRS nope! Was it free from any contamination...unknown.Respectfully,Evopeach

I did not say anything about making matter intelligent.. I said what we did in the process of causing matter to perform, to organize, to do tasks was always the result of our imposing our intellectually developed logos, information, designs etc. ideas on the matter and that otherwise the matter would never ever exhibit those capabilities.The matter is not truly intelligent it is simulating some limited specific intelligent activities via a schema, design, direction, instruction, code et al that without our implementing our intellect on the matter it would never perform.A cd of music cant really sing Hey Jude by the Beatles but we took the real voices, captured it analog, then digitized and finally all that conscious thought, ability, talent and technical knowhow inside brains was made manafest in a digitized codes messaage understandable to us via a player machine and a cd which have no REAL organic intelligence but simulate such precisely because we imposed our intelligence et al upon that matter and caused it to perform tasks it could never develop or perform otherwise.DNA and the human cell and those molecules making it up do not have brains sop to speak but they function to perform the most complex task known, self replication and repair, based on a code the genetic code using chemistry with great unaccounted for specificity. And we can observe it doing so and understand something of the processes involved but certainly not all just yet.So again my conclusion absent any possible naturalistic explanation or demonstration is that an outside intelligent entity did precisely what we do every day .. we infuse matter with our intellectual ideas and cause it to carry them out.

I am specifically pointing out to the administrative overseerers of this post that I am trying hard not to respond to personal attacks as this person just imposed on me in his post.I never said there were'nt ANY r form molecules in the dna of course the sugar molecules are, never even mentioned in my post period.I said there were no r form amino acids involved in the dna molecules genetic code and for good reason they wouldn't fit, they couldn't code for the correct proteins even if they could be fit into DNA they couldn't be read from an "mrna" strand by the ribosome enzyme and thus the replication would fail, period.I will be pleased to read any papers or references demonstrating r form amino acids making up functioning dna genetic code elements and performing the tasks in the replication process as we observe today in living systems successfully.