Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How to make a ribozyme (using abiotic starting compounds)
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 13 of 55 (410491)
07-15-2007 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Doddy
06-20-2007 9:42 AM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleosides
I was reading your posts here... all of you, and I noticed the words you were using; build, create, make (ie. design).
Have you considerd the irony that intelligent agents (yourselves) are attempting to 'recreate' what is supposed to have happened without labs or precise engineering.
As Michael Behe noted, it seems that the problem is very evident. There were no labs or lab technicians in the supposed primodial past.
Or as Scott Minnich said, 'if we have to be design engineers to understand these systems, what does that tell you?' Especially considering that we do not understand how to 'build' such a 'system'. The problem seems utterly alien in it's technical proportion.
I'm not suggesting you don't try... only that you think about all of the angles.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Doddy, posted 06-20-2007 9:42 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by kalimero, posted 07-16-2007 1:30 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 15 by Doddy, posted 07-16-2007 5:33 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 16 of 55 (410741)
07-17-2007 2:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Doddy
07-16-2007 5:33 AM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleosides
Doddy
I don't care how smart you think humans are, or how dumb you think chemical reactions are - I have no problem believing that this would have happened.
Thanks Doddy... I appriciate the fact that you at least have the intellectual honesty to admit that it is a 'belief', and not dogmatically state it as fact. There is nothing wrong with belief. But calling belief fact is another matter.
And there are several ways to test belief that when incorportated into a whole test, are quite powerful; Emperical adequacy, Logical coherence, and experiential relevance.
Personally, I have a big problem believing it could happen without intelligent guidance, because it is 'counter emperical' to believe that nature organizes anything. Nature tears down. The fact that organisms exist does not 'prove' that nature did it. Life is itself, a big '?'.
And these organisms are the most highly organized systems that we know of (And I just mean the single celled ones, at the genetic level). But, we are talking once again about my 'belief'.
There may be information out there that would change the playing field, but we don't have it. The information that we do have (ie emperical) says no. In particular the 2nd Law of Thermodnamics.
To presuppose (unscientifically but rather philosophically) that everything is material in origin is also falacious. To exclude philosophical coherence as a valid test, purely on philosophical grounds does not follow. It is utterly illogical.
What troubles me, is that too many have moved past the problem (a very big problem I might add) with full conviction that it will be solved.
We don't move to B until you have A. If we do, it is nothing but theatre.
Doddy
However, it isn't especially likely that life originated in this manner. Not only are these steps quite probably not the ones that occurred, but a ribozyme might not even be the first sort of life (if the RNA world isn't true).
Especially since every component in the cell, is produced by the code in the DNA in conjunction with the other macinery in the cell. Even RNA is transcribed from the DNA, no? So what good is RNA on it's own.
The smallest self replicating system that is emperical already exists. What are the implications if no other form exists (a negative affirmation that cannot be proven)? But for arguments sake... what are the implications?
I ask, because the same unproveable argument is made 'by some', that since there is no emperical evidence for God (nevermind our infinite universe) the we must assume he does not exist.
Why can't we assume that no other self replicating cycle exists, because we have no evidence of one?
You end up needing a whole bunch of different but coincidentally compatible RNAs (in some form) that converge in the same time and space. I know your familliar with all of this... I just confess complete incredulity.
Even Molbiogirl's reference in the other thread admitted, in the details, that we needed this, and then that etc... There's just no such thing as self-organizing. And to me it is just as unlikely as a perpetual motion machine, that not only perpetuates, but also grows. It's a bad analogy... but it makes the point.
I don't want to deride anyone for the effort being expended to do research, but I do have one question that I would appriciate an answer to.
All of this aside, let's assume that you (or anyone else) were able to solve this problem. I can't help but wonder... why do you want to solve it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Doddy, posted 07-16-2007 5:33 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by DrJones*, posted 07-17-2007 3:42 AM Rob has replied
 Message 19 by Doddy, posted 07-17-2007 5:28 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 20 of 55 (410929)
07-18-2007 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by DrJones*
07-17-2007 3:42 AM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleosides
DJ
The 2nd law of thermo applies to closed systems, the Earth is not a closed system.
Seems to me you've dramaitcally oversimplified the issue in the same manner that those who hypothesize the synthesis of nucleosides do...
The first Law of Thermodynamics clearly states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, within a purely naturalistic framework, the universe as a whole is a closed system.
Therefore the second law means the clock is ticking...
And the earth resides within the universe the last time I checked. I don't think we're exempt from the law.
The only thing keeping entropy at bay on earth is intelligence. And not our intelligence btw, but whoever or whatever programmed life (in particular, giving plants the ability to harness the energy in light).
Life is the only thing... fighting against that which is trying to kill it; organizing and reorganizing that which nature (governed by the 2nd law) is in the process of breaking down. And break down it will.
I just don't understand where your coming from...
Is this the appropriate thread in which to discuss this since it relates to the topic, or is it too much a tangent?
What you are suggesting is not emperical but theoretical. What is emperical, is that intelligence and highly organized systems can resist entropy, but not defeat it. We're slowly losing...
Show me where we're slowly winning?
Am I missing something?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by DrJones*, posted 07-17-2007 3:42 AM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by DrJones*, posted 07-18-2007 1:43 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 23 by iceage, posted 07-18-2007 1:44 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 07-18-2007 1:48 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 21 of 55 (410930)
07-18-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Doddy
07-17-2007 5:28 AM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleosides
Doddy, I am going to work on some of your comments at a later date. i don't have the energy to unwind them at the moment. And something tells me that my last response to DJ is going to cause me some research beofre this is over...
For now, I did have to respond to one of your comments....
Rob writes:
All of this aside, let's assume that you (or anyone else) were able to solve this problem. I can't help but wonder... why do you want to solve it?
Doddy Why not? Knowledge is good.
I must say Doddy... I would have expected such anti-depth from the script of a low budget flick... but not from you.
I didn't ask that question for my benefit... but your own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Doddy, posted 07-17-2007 5:28 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Doddy, posted 07-18-2007 3:42 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 26 of 55 (411714)
07-22-2007 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Doddy
07-17-2007 5:28 AM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleosides
Rob writes:
Why can't we assume that no other self replicating cycle exists, because we have no evidence of one?
But we do have evidence for one - we see a self-replicating cycle, and it is only extrapolation backwards that leads to the assumption of one existing. It's an entirely different thing with supernatural beings, but I fear dragging this thread off the rails if I elaborate.
I can understand that... it is reasonable.
But it is exactly this 'extrapolation' that is purely 'theo' and is not science (even in terms of the current convention of methodological naturalism). As you said before, it is a belief. It is the same theological foundation that the apostle Paul used in romans chapter 1. I'll spare you the details since I have Romans chapter 1 at least 6 times in the recent past.
Even so, I think I found the difference, and it relates to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well (which I will have to address at another time and in another thread). Your talking about a self replicating cycle (and so was I)... I think we must distinguish between a self replicating cycle, and a self organizing cycle.
A self replicating cycle is easy really, but it comes after the organization of the system. What do you think?
Rob writes:
There's just no such thing as self-organizing.
Bold words coming from a self-organizing system such as yourself!
That's what I mean right there... I am not self organizing. I am self replicating...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Doddy, posted 07-17-2007 5:28 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 1:54 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 28 by Doddy, posted 07-22-2007 3:14 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 29 of 55 (411745)
07-22-2007 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Doddy
07-22-2007 3:14 AM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleosides
[qs]
Rob writes
But it is exactly this 'extrapolation' that is purely 'theo' and is not science (even in terms of the current convention of methodological naturalism).
Doddy: Extrapolation is scientific. It is assuming something without any evidence from which to extrapolate or interpolate that isn't.
Not really... extrapolation is 'theo' (or 'theo'ry if you prefer). It is an 'inference to the best explanation'.
Now please listen carefully for a moment because I do not want to be misunderstood.... Extrapolation based upon fact may be reasonable and logical, but that is only if we assume philosophical coherence and logic to be a valid 'scientific proof' of an ideas worth.
Personally, I do believe so. So if science is determined to be logical, I am with you.
Furthermore, since the only time we see language and code being 'written', is in the presence of intelligence, we can extrapolate from what we do know that the origin of biological structures such as DNA (a quaternary code / language) arose from intelligence.
So I agree with your coherent and valid philosophical basis for your argument Doddy. But why can't those in ID, use the same argument as a 'scientifically valid inference' for design?
This argument is well presented here for those interested: Abiogenesis Just scroll down to the man writing on the chaulkboard (which is part 5 of 7), then click the play button in the middle of the YouTube player. After it begins to play, click the menu button in the lower right corner and click on part 7 of 7. The argument is given about 2 minutes into the clip though it is helpful to see clip 6 and 7 respectively to grasp the entire context.
So both intelligent design 'theory', as well as 'evolutionary theory', are an extrapolation from the facts. They are inferences based upon what is known, so as to see what is not known.
The only difference between them, is that ID is ultimately more coherent logically, in spite of any presuppositions or 'wishes' of the observers.
Methodological naturalism is ultimately forced to assume (without explanation) that the material universe (simply because of it's eternal nature) was bound or predetermined to self organize at some point.
And that is interesting because a Christian such as myself would say (also without much explantion) that it is simply God's eternal nature to have self existed eternally, and to create in an organized and intelligeble manner.
No difference in terms of faith, ultimately...
The only real difference, is in the questions of 'meaning'. And though science acts as though meaning is irrelevant to science, I cannot help but wonder what they mean by that...
The implications of we being the ultimate intelligence or not, are quite staggering. The implications are very distinct between the two worldviews.
Rob writes: I think we must distinguish between a self replicating cycle, and a self organizing cycle.
A self replicating cycle is easy really, but it comes after the organization of the system. What do you think?
Doddy: What is the difference? In order for something to replicate, it must go from one organised entity to two organised entities. Thus, it must have a mechanism of organisation - anabolism ('organising' reactions). Replication is just one major form of this type of metabolism. So replication is self-organization.
Come now, what happened to logical extrapolation already?
Replication is simply copying what already exists. The 'mechanisms' and preplication is regulated by a preexisting code and organization. What is the origin of the order which dictates the replication?
What we can know for sure (logically) is that replication is not the source of the order, for there would be nothing to replicate. Replication is not creation. Before something can be replicated... it must exist.
If you want to assume the existence of order and intelligence as the source of the first cause, then you must look to the only place that has offered a coherent explanation, and that is the doctrine of the Trinitarian God. And His is a strange and alien metabolism indeed. A consuming fire is how some were inspired to describe Him.
Not an indifferent and mindless material reality, but a living mind that sees and knows all. Logic Himself is alive and stalking you and I to test our deep and hidden motives.
But that is only valid if philosophical coherence is king, and the facts being necessarily bound to fit inside of the logical box.
If we want to force open that box, and be free in an unlimited way, we will bear the fruit of the disorder and illogic that follows.
Eat anything in the garden... just leave that one fruit (questioning the validity of logic) alone. If we question philosphical coherence, what then can be true? Our own bias based upon personal and selfish motives?
Order and logic is not a prison. Disorder on the other hand, is to ultimately not think, or be, at all.
Here's the point Doddy... And it follows from top to bottom. In this case it is nucleotide synthesis but it is logic we must look to for guidance. I see a lot of deconstruction going on here at EVC. But to deconstruct, we must first, start with a 'construct'.
It takes intelligence to start putting the pieces together. Don't just look at the pieces, look at the big picture regardless of what Nosy thinks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Doddy, posted 07-22-2007 3:14 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 07-22-2007 10:02 AM Rob has replied
 Message 41 by Doddy, posted 07-23-2007 1:33 AM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 31 of 55 (411762)
07-22-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Percy
07-22-2007 10:02 AM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleotides
Percy:
What fact or facts or implication of facts is the introduction of an intelligent agent based upon?
That information (in particular a complex code / language) arises from intelligent guidance. Be it written language or spoken, the word itself testifies the fact (which is particularly rich as a theological point as you know).
What you guys need to do (and have not) is show how a highly specified complex code can originate without intelligence. The fact that the code exists does not equate to natural causes.
Percy:Mutations, and there are a many different kinds of mutation from single nucleotide replacement to entire chromosome duplication, modify the genetic code. Almost every reproductive event introduces mutations without any intelligent participation. Extrapolation of the processes of mutation and selection backward in time is used as a framework in which to interpret life's change and diversity, including the origin of life itself.
What are you going to mutate?
You can't mutate something that does not exist. To change or rearrange something, that 'something' must exist...
Your talking about creation... mutation is something that happens after the fact. It is the same point I made to Doddy in my last post. And I provided a link that explains with much detail the coherent arguments. You're free to study it if you like...
Also, I don't think genetic diversity is equal to mutation. Mixing genes of the father and mother doesn't necessarily mutate anything. It rearranges into a utterly unique individual with essential worth; no carbon copies.
And from what I understand, most of the genes are present in previous generations, but not all of them are expressed. So, in different generations, preexisting genes may be expressed in offspring that were not in the parent or vice versa.
That is why it is so important that words objectively mean things Percy. So that we cannot misuse 'replication' in place of 'organization', or 'creation' in place of 'mutation'.
Do you concur?
Btw... since this relates to the issue of an increase in information and not simply a net change... this is one of my favorite questions...
"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
For Dr. Dawkins answer you can follow this link and watch for yourself: Richard Dawkins And The 11 Second Pause
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Percy, posted 07-22-2007 10:02 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 2:12 PM Rob has not replied
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 07-22-2007 4:02 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 34 of 55 (411811)
07-22-2007 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Percy
07-22-2007 4:02 PM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleotides
Percy:
We already know that the creation of information does not require intelligent guidance.
How so?
Percy:
Mutations, which represent the addition, subtraction or modification of information, arise in almost every reproductive event without any intelligent intervention whatsoever.
I did not say that an intelligence was directly (or even indirectly) guiding every step of the process. I am not talking about intervention...
The point is that 'the process of mutation' cannot explain the existence of the information that is mutating.
Percy:
What other causes are there besides natural causes? Do you have evidence of something non-natural ever being the cause of something happening in the natural world? Of course not. (In the context of this question, people are of course part of the natural world.)
Are you asking for materialistic evidence for the existence of the non-material? Kind of a no-win for me isn't it? Nice ground rules...
Is philosophical coherence legitimate evidence to you? It is after all, non material.
Percy:
We don't know the details of the origin of life, may never know the details given that it happened around 4 billion years ago, but the genetic code arose through the natural process of change and selection we're familiar with today, only with predecessor molecules of DNA rather than modern DNA.
You seem to be stating fact here... I am thankful that even though there is much disagreement, that Matt P, and Doddy (as two examples) are much more responsible in their description and beliefs. You could learn a few things from the more responsible and candid among us. I know I must strive to remember that myself...
Percy:
The question actually has a very simple answer. There are a number of different processes that add to information in the genome (though biologists don't usually think of genomes in terms of information, that perspective is much more common in ID). One of the simplest to explain processes, though not the most common one, is gene duplication. Occasionally cell division errors cause duplication of an entire gene. With two copies of the gene, one of them is now free to mutate independently to carry out a modified or even a new function, because the other gene is still there to perform the original function.
It is interesting (rather telling) that you call it an error.
But the next time I see a kid with down syndrome, I'll remember that it is only nature doing her thing. Or is it an error?
I could say more, but we're not going to agree. You believe what you must for the sake of your lifestyle demands (that is clearly what this is really all about... I won't name names... but I can read between the lines).
I am not buying. In some ignorant and childish way, I might have liked to a point... being molested as a kid, but I wanted to believe the lies out of curiosity for 'more knowledge'.
I have no such illusions now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Percy, posted 07-22-2007 4:02 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 6:14 PM Rob has replied
 Message 38 by Percy, posted 07-22-2007 9:14 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 36 of 55 (411842)
07-22-2007 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by crashfrog
07-22-2007 6:14 PM


Re: Synthesis of Nucleotides
Crash:
Down's syndrome isn't caused by gene duplication, but rather by improper assortment of chromosomes during meiosis.
Thank you for that...
What do you mean by improper?
Is the syndrome a disorder, or just 'evolution' working it's random marvels?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 6:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by crashfrog, posted 07-22-2007 8:44 PM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 42 of 55 (411933)
07-23-2007 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Doddy
07-23-2007 1:33 AM


Re: Polymerisation: Synthesis of Ribose Nucleic Acid Strands
Doddy:
In aqueous solution, this polymerisation reaction is not thermodynamically favoured, however, so there must be a source of energy. It doesn't take much, even moderate temperatures can enable a net polymerisation reaction to proceed, although this is a very slow process.
Heat only provides the correct environment for the processes. So you need energy for the environment, and then energy to sysnthesize.
The soure of energy for these reactions is stuff like ATP and GTP. Not that I am very knowledgeable about it all.
So why don't you explain just one step in the procedure for me...
How do you synthsize AMP?
Remember, as Percy said, we'll keep it simple... we won't even talk about a bacteria though...
Just 'AMP' will suffice.
More importantly (and one step back into more complexity, not less)... how do you make the ATP used to synthesize ADP?
It's sooooo simple.
http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/...farabee/BIOBK/BioBookATP.html
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Doddy, posted 07-23-2007 1:33 AM Doddy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 07-23-2007 5:50 PM Rob has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 47 of 55 (412147)
07-23-2007 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by molbiogirl
07-23-2007 5:50 PM


Re: Polymerisation: Synthesis of Ribose Nucleic Acid Strands
Molbiogirl:
Today's organisms use three types of energy sources: fermentation, photosynthesis and respiration. None of these energy sources has been linked directly to the origin of life. A fourth energy source, ”thermosynthesis,’ free energy gain from thermal cycling, was proposed in a theoretical model for the emergence of the chemiosmotic machinery
Why do they not mention ATP? Could it be because they don't want to confuse you with the facts?
Those facts might just test your faith, rock your world, and send you for the counsellors chair. And that's ok... we're all in the same boat. It's good to test your faith now and then and not be afraid to consider other alternatives. No need to hide facts or motives, we're all in need of growth here.
All I am asking, is for someone to tell me what did exist then. Why, if we know what exists now, can't we assume that the same processes existed then? We know how these systems work to a high degree.
Why are we trying to find invisible things that there is no evidence for?
The only reason, is that without those invisible qualities, extrapolated from what can be seen, we must extrapolate from what can be seen, the invisible qualities of God from actual evidence.
Romans 1:19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen. 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
And that is unacceptable... not because the evidence does not support it, but because then we would have to face accountablity for our immorality.
It's all right there in Romans 1, written almost 2 thousand years ago. Humanity was the same then as it is now. We're only more sophisticated in our deception and technological methods of subverting the consequences of our actions.
Molbiogirl:
Furthermore. The polymerization was probably catalyzed. Catalyzation of this sort has been done in the lab.
Did nucleotides have labs and techies intelligently guiding the process on the priordial seas?
Maybe (or as you said, probably) your right (I mean 'they'). They're 'experts' you know?
All you have to do is say 'nope'... and then quotemine some preist of evolutionary theory and perform miraculous signs and wonders for the world and they will follow you... they will come to your defense as well. They will silence any brazen opposition such as this. Just watch and be amazed.
I know far less than you about biology, but I don't let fancy words disturb my God given ability to see philosophical absurdity 'hidden beside me in the reeds and marshes' (Credit to Isaiah for that one...).
As for origins, we simply don't know, except that you... do know...
I think?
Is that right?
Forgive me for being so specific about it, I do not wish to belittle; but I am trying to be scientific. Everyone keeps telling me that that is the only thing that counts.
Leave the blind faith behind, wash in the pool and regain your sight.
If not for the sake of truth or God or Christ, then for the sake of consistent logic (which is synonymous, and at one, with the others).
But none of that matters if you're commited to believing what fits your presuppositions, in particular what you want life to be.
It is nothing more complicated that worshipping a graven image made in your likeness.
We all do it... and we must stop, because in the end, the only thing that will be left standing, is reality in it's unadulterated glory. And that is something that will kill us, unless we learn to live with it.
And it is a hard process to endure. We can't do it alone, but he is mighty to save, and gives the power to endure to those who call upon Him.
Sorry for preaching the truth in a board set aside for preaching a different one of the other 'theo'retical truths.
Just open your mind and think about it. At the very least, let us try to hold the celebration until after the dance. I am trying to get 'The Ringo's' out (you know... that tendancy to whoop and holler, go tit for tat and play 'Yo Momma'!).
So do not take my words as a rebuke, but a simple plea to you soul for transpearency.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 07-23-2007 5:50 PM molbiogirl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Doddy, posted 07-24-2007 3:24 AM Rob has replied
 Message 49 by AdminNosy, posted 07-24-2007 8:45 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 50 of 55 (412792)
07-26-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by molbiogirl
07-23-2007 5:50 PM


Re: Polymerisation: Synthesis of Ribose Nucleic Acid Strands
Rob: The source of energy for these reactions is stuff like ATP and GTP.
Molbiogirl: Nope.
Today's organisms use three types of energy sources: fermentation, photosynthesis and respiration. None of these energy sources has been linked directly to the origin of life. A fourth energy source, ”thermosynthesis,’ free energy gain from thermal cycling, was proposed in a theoretical model for the emergence of the chemiosmotic machinery ...
Pardon me, you are correct. However, my point was that those processes only convert raw energy into the form necessary for complex nucleotide synthesis.
Molbiogril:
Of course modern ATP synthase didn't exist back then. Nobody's claiming it did. Except you, I mean.
What could I claim did exist back then, without moving into hypothetical wonderland?
Are you suggesting something did exit that is not materially emperical?
Whatever the answer, it appears miraculous (I'll spare you the quotes from evolutionists who agree on that point).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 07-23-2007 5:50 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 51 of 55 (412793)
07-26-2007 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Doddy
07-24-2007 3:24 AM


Back to the subject...
My apologies to you and molbiogirl for assuming you knew what I was getting at... and even more so for leaping from a most excellent conversation into the pulpit. I was very tired and should have waited until the following day to respond. I moved from premise 'z' without sustaining premise 'a'.
However, I see no legitimate reason that the discussion cannot continue as the appropriate action was taken. Is there some fear that I am becoming effective?
Because there is still much to discuss.
back to the subject...
Doddy:
You're confused. ATP is an energy medium. ATP is no more a source of energy than a battery is a source of energy. That is, in local systems, you can consider a battery to be a source of energy, but ultimately the energy came from somewhere else. The only ways that an organism can gain energy from the environment are listed there.
Of course... I assumed you would understand why I mentioned ATP. the issue is one of converting the 'raw energy' into a useable biological form. How is that done without the complex functions we see in life.
Your battery analogy is flawless... but that is my whole point. How are batteries made? Not by random chemical processes. They are designed with purpose by intelligent agents.
A battery doesn't just happen to provide energy to a machine. It exists for that purpose.
Was or is there evidence for material life (that doesn't need these processes)? What if these originating processes are not material? Perhaps that is why they are so mystifying. Perhaps we are using the wrong tool to find them (I'm just 'theo'rizing).
[qs]
Rob:Why, if we know what exists now, can't we assume that the same processes existed then?
Doddy:
Because it doesn't make sense. Given that we know that animals alive today aren't the same as they were 300,000,000 years ago, why shouldn't we assume the same is true of metabolic processes? Anyway, this is digressing.
Uh... is there something in the fossil record that indicates other processes than those brought up by biogirl. You'd have to ask a paleontologist. Seems to me that the processes we see now, are the same processes we see as far back as the geological record allows. How do we know (as you said) that life was different then? How do we know there was even material life?
Why do you say we know, when 'we' (the convention) don't know?
I think it doesn't make sense to you to assume that there is some as yet unknown 'cause' beyond a material explanation for the same reason it is irrational to other evolutionists.
"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational."
(Dr. L.T. More)
Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
(Wiki-evolution /Richard Lewontin, 1997. Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997)
This is clearly an issue of materialistic bias. And I am not suggesting that you have thought this through to the extent that Lewontin has and are therefore guilty of some deception.
Science should be objective.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Doddy, posted 07-24-2007 3:24 AM Doddy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 07-26-2007 11:26 AM Rob has replied
 Message 55 by Doddy, posted 07-27-2007 2:47 AM Rob has not replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 53 of 55 (412831)
07-26-2007 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by kuresu
07-26-2007 11:26 AM


Re: Back to the subject...
Have you so quickly forgotten our last conversation, Rob?
How could I have forgotten that?
Main Entry: the·o·ry
Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thir-E
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
How you cannot understand that theo is theo. That philsophical coherence is philsophical coherence is a mystery to me.
Are they perfectly analogous? No!
One pertains to reality in terms of a living entity. The other in terms of purely mindless material force. Both are a philosophical construct... a postulate.
A theistic evolutionary view really captures this fact:
Evolution) is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must hence forward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow ” this is what evolution is.
(Wikipedia / Theodosius Grygorovych Dobzhansky)
Don't you see Kuresu... if evolutionary theory is in fact reality, then it is God. And is therfore the light of the world.
If you want to argue this further Kuresu, this is not the place. Other than Anglagard's comment in your thread, as to the 'non-living attributes of theory' as opposed to 'theology and it's postulate of a living and breathing reality', I see no one other than yourself who has missed the point.
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by kuresu, posted 07-26-2007 11:26 AM kuresu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by AdminNosy, posted 07-26-2007 12:46 PM Rob has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024