Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 314 (419414)
09-02-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Rob
09-01-2007 7:23 PM


Hi Rob,
You are correct that science, working within the framework of methodological naturalism, will always assume natural causes. So when you ask about the origin of the ability to transform "raw energy" into "biological energy", the answer is just chemistry.
If you ever took chemistry in high school then you'll remember that many experiments included a step where you heated a mixture over a Bunsen burner. The heat from the Bunsen burner is your "raw energy", and it drives the chemical reactions. Energy, whether in the form of heat or light or cosmic rays or particles related to radioactivity, drives chemical reactions. It's a completely natural phenomenon. Life powers itself by taking advantage of the fact that energy drives chemical reactions.
In reconstructing the history of life, science will only consider processes for which there is evidence, like chemical reactions driven by heat or light, and change in species over time. We have no evidence of any processes driven by supernatural agents, so science cannot consider such possibilities. The idea of the existence of supernatural agents springs from religion and spirituality and not from evidence from the natural world.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Rob, posted 09-01-2007 7:23 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by molbiogirl, posted 09-02-2007 5:07 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 09-02-2007 5:26 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 101 of 314 (419487)
09-03-2007 2:41 AM


Request for More Info
This thread is mostly comprised of a bunch of tiny exchanges with little specific information. For example, if someone asked me, "Please explain how ATP forms naturally using just the information provided in this thread, not including any provided links or references," I'm pretty sure I couldn't do it.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by molbiogirl, posted 09-03-2007 3:52 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 108 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 11:59 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 118 of 314 (419558)
09-03-2007 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Rob
09-03-2007 1:37 PM


Re: Leslie Orgel
Rob writes:
I agree with you... I found a relevant section of Behe's book detailing the dillemas, but I tire of simply playing the spoiler. So let's move the debate some...
While you've got Behe's book handy you might reread page 5 of the first chapter, Lilliputian Biology, where he says:
Behe writes:
Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.
Moving on:
Rob writes:
The question is really one of the definition of science. Though methodological naturalism does not eliminate a designer by necessity, it does require the designer to be apparent in material terms. What is frustrating for folks like me, is that the designer is by definition a spiritual being. So methodological naturalism does effectively eliminate the designer.
If, a la Behe, the designer performs microbiological redesigns, thereby creating things like the bacterial flagellum and blood clotting, then he is *very* apparent in the material world.
Methodological naturalism has no requirement that natural phenomenon be directly apparent to one or more of the five senses. Using electron microscopes and cloud chambers and thermometers and pressure gauges to detect natural phenomena that we can't perceive unassisted is just fine. It is also just fine to detect events that occurred when we weren't around by examining the evidence they left behind, such as geological layers and fossils and ancient starlight and archaeological remains.
So it is not a problem if the designer cannot be directly detected as long as we may detect him by his works. The only problem with claims that the designer is responsible for the diversity of life is that the evidence he left behind is identical to that produced by evolutionary processes.
Since natural explanations for the diversity of life exist, arguing that a designer is actually responsible is like arguing that the designer also causes other natural phenomena such as lightning and earthquakes and the aurora borealis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 1:37 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 2:45 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 126 of 314 (419575)
09-03-2007 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Rob
09-03-2007 2:45 PM


Re: a la Behe
Rob writes:
As you said Percy:
So it is not a problem if the designer cannot be directly detected as long as we may detect him by his works.
Well?
So let's design a test that would detect the designer by his works. Let us say that me and a Greek from ancient Athens observe lightning in a thunder storm. I claim the lightning is a natural phenomenon caused by the discharge of electricity between clouds and ground which have become oppositely charged due to the storm. The ancient Athenian says the lightning bolt was cast by Zeus. What test could we make to tell who is right?
If you think about this for a while you'll see that no such test can be devised, but let me take you through a little of the discussion between me and the Athenian to make clear why this is so.
I set up charge meters on the ground and in an airplane in the clouds to measure the electrical charge, and I place an ammeter between an iron post and the ground to measure the electrical current of the lightning. After lightning strikes the pole I show the results to the Athenian. I have charts showing the gradual buildup of opposite charges in the clouds and on the ground that suddenly disappear at the exact time of the lightning strike. And I have another chart of the amount of current flowing between the steel pole and the ground that indicates no current was flowing until the exact time of the lightning strike, at which time a huge amount of current flowed for an extremely short time period. In other words, there was a large current spike when the lightning bolt struck the steel pole.
The Athenian replies that that might all be true, but that it was Zeus who caused the buildup of opposite charges on the ground and in the clouds.
Now what? I could make more detailed measurements showing the flow of charge in the clouds and on the ground and claim that the flow of charge was due to the motion of water droplets in the air, but the Athenian could then claim that Zeus made the water droplets move as they did. So I could then make detailed meteorological measurements showing that it was the wind that caused the water droplets to move as they did, but the Athenian could then claim that Zeus made the wind blow as it did.
Do you see the problem? And look at how difficult it was for me to gather my data. I had to send planes up in the clouds during storms, and I had to buy a special ammeter that could handle a huge flow of current, and I had to make detailed meteorological measurements probably by sending up hundreds of weather balloons. The fact of the matter is that if someone wants to attribute divine causes to a natural phenomenon, no amount of evidence will convince him otherwise.
If you find the lightning example a bit strained, since no one today doubts that lightning is a natural phenomenon, keep in mind that there are still flat-earthers out there (The Flat Earth Society).
So, given that no test can be devised to definitively show one way or the other whether lightning is a natural phenomenon or comes from Zeus, how are you going to devise a test for the much more complicated phenomenon of evolution to definitively show whether it is a natural or divine phenomenon?
No such test is possible, and that's why supernatural causes are not part of science. Supernatural causes are the postulate of spirituality and religion, and not the result of evidence. They are not constrained by reality, and anyone who resorts to supernatural explanations is free to postulate whatever contingency is required. They're just not free to call it science. Science is not in the business of postulating untestable questions.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 2:45 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 5:30 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 128 of 314 (419578)
09-03-2007 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Rob
09-03-2007 5:00 PM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
Rob, all you've done is highlight in bold phrases that include the typically tentative phrasing of scientific papers. We've been over this ground before. Science is tentative.
So when a scientific paper says that something "could" have occurred in such-and-such a way, it only means that it is a possibility as opposed to a definite fact. What those papers are describing are possible natural pathways for the formation of ATP. That such pathways exist does not mean that they are the ones that nature actually took advantage of, it only means that we understand some of the ways ATP could have formed naturally. After billions of years there may be too little evidence left to reach any definitive conclusions.
What you require in order to keep open the possibility of divine intervention is for scientists to never discover any natural pathways for the formation of ATP. Unfortunately for you, scientists have already uncovered such pathways.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 5:00 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Chiroptera, posted 09-03-2007 5:21 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 131 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 5:38 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 180 of 314 (419674)
09-04-2007 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Rob
09-03-2007 5:30 PM


Re: a la Behe
Rob writes:
Percy:
So let's design a test that would detect the designer by his works. Let us say that me and a Greek from ancient Athens observe lightning in a thunder storm. I claim the lightning is a natural phenomenon caused by the discharge of electricity between clouds and ground which have become oppositely charged due to the storm. The ancient Athenian says the lightning bolt was cast by Zeus. What test could we make to tell who is right?
I was expecting so much more...
But you didn't need so much more, all you needed was already there.
You originally argued that science biases the game against the supernatural by requiring evidence from the material world, and I pointed out that bacterial flagellums and blood clotting mechanisms are very material things. We can know the designer by his works, but how do you tell which works are his and which are natural?
So I presented the example of the lightning bolt. We know that lightning bolts can have natural causes, but it is fully within the power of the designer to create lightning bolts. What test can you devise to tell whether a particular lightning bolt was natural or the work of the designer?
The same is true of your question about ATP. We know there are natural pathways for the creation of ATP. What test can you devise to tell whether the original ATP was natural or the work of the designer?
You provide the answer yourself:
There is no test for such a scenario. I agree!
If no such test can be devised, then it isn't science. You can continue to believe the designer created the original ATP, and this can be a reality for you, but you cannot scientifically demonstrate that a supernatural designer created the original ATP.
This thread is about the origin of energy sources for life processes, but the same is true for the other questions you raise, such as the origin of DNA and of information. The only possible test for the supernatural would be evidence of a process or event that is physically impossible in the material world.
The arguments you're drawing out of Behe's book have all been rebutted many different times in many different venues. Ultimately it is just the same old God-of-the-gaps approach. Believers will always find God in that which we do not yet know. At one time believers wondered what caused lightning or the motion of the planets, and in these unknowns they found God. But science filled in these gaps, and now believers have had to retreat to the realm of microbiological structures, wondering from whence came DNA and in this unknown finding God.
Let me briefly address a couple more items:
If the law of thermodynamics wasn't valid in an open system, then how did we discover it and prove it here in an open system?
This is off-topic so I won't discuss it here, but the laws of thermodynamics *are* valid for open systems.
The same applies for cellular factories that convert energy. The energy itself cannot create them. Which gets back to a major point of the thread.
So... we know where instructions come from; intelligence. It has yet to be shown (though it is extravegantly suggested and theorized) that non-intelligent guidance and simple repetative physical laws (informationally) can be a cause and origin for this peculiar form of information that is shown emperically to be caused by intelligence elsewhere.
That is definitely not the topic of this thread. This is from your opening post:
Rob in his opening post writes:
Is there evidence of raw energy being useful for biological systems or not? And... would it take more energy to create a system of conversion than the raw energy to be converted provides? This question is the real problem thermodynamically. ( Thermodynamic Arguments for Creation )
Your first question has already been answered: biological processes are just chemical reactions driven by energy, energy that usually ulitmately comes from sun, but that may also come from other sources, such a radioactivity and geothermal.
Your second question probably hasn't been addressed, it's not actually phrased clearly, but it appears to be asking if the development of life's energy processes is thermodynamically impossible. Since the earth is an open system the answer is no, it is not thermodynamically impossible.
--Percy
PS - Google Toolbar provides a spellchecker, and the Firefox browser has a built in spellchecker.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 5:30 PM Rob has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 181 of 314 (419677)
09-04-2007 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Rob
09-03-2007 5:38 PM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
Rob writes:
All I am saying is that these theories offer no emperical proof of anything.
Science is tentative. Nothing is ever proven in science. There are no final answers in science.
Rephrasing your statement to be consistent with the actual nature of science would have you saying, "These theories are not supported by any empirical evidence," which is, of course, untrue.
Furthermore, the creation of these systems by human manipulation only proves intelligent design (ironically for the case of proving inteligent design is not necessary).
This is an example of an significant misunderstanding that often arises in discussions with creationists about recreations and simulations. The "human manipulation" is only to recreate the supposed conditions of the ancient earth. In other words, the experiments are attempts to create ATP in the same way and under the same conditions as it was created on the ancient earth. The experimenters set up the conditions and then observe what happens, making it as if they had actually been there as observers when the first ATP formed. The "human manipulation" is merely to recreate those very special early-earth conditions, and definitely does not include any manipulation of molecules to force the outcome.
These experiments are essentially simulations of conditions on the early earth. Simulations of things like the weather and planetary orbits and so forth require a lot of intelligence to set up, but once the simulations themselves begin human intervention is over. At that point humans just sit back, observe and collect data.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 5:38 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Rob, posted 09-04-2007 9:08 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 182 of 314 (419678)
09-04-2007 6:16 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Rob
09-03-2007 5:58 PM


Re: You just couldn't wait to drag in the Second Law, could you?
Rob writes:
And none of those papers suggest anything resembling the emmense metabolisms we see today. What created them? What good is one one thousanth of a solution when you have a whole factory to account for?
I think you're forgetting that the referenced work provided by Molbiogirl are examples of what Behe was referring to when he said on page 5 of Darwin's Black Box:
Behe writes:
I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world.
You're drawing heavily upon Behe's book in some of your posts, but you're attempting to make a point that Behe definitely disagrees with: that evolution doesn't happen. Behe accepts the idea of common descent, and he accepts that genomes evolve naturally over time as organisms adapt to changing environments. He only finds evidence for a designer in certain microbiological structures that he believes are irreducibly complex, which apparently includes ATP.
But as Molbiogirl's citations of the work Behe has such respect for show, ATP is not irreducibly complex. It arises naturally under conditions we believe might have been present on the early earth.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Rob, posted 09-03-2007 5:58 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Rob, posted 09-04-2007 10:06 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 183 of 314 (419679)
09-04-2007 6:20 AM


Topic Drift and Chat Room Style Exchanges
I'd like to suggest that we get on topic and cease the rapid-fire chat-style exchanges before moderators take notice.
--Percy

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 187 of 314 (419711)
09-04-2007 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by Rob
09-04-2007 9:08 AM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
Rob writes:
Supposedly very special simulations...
Anyone with a brain knows that I can prove anything with math if we start off by agreeing on wrong assumptions. Manipulating the environment is equal to manipulating the molecules in the environment.
Setting up the initial conditions can be construed as human intervention, but the intervention is with existing conditions in order to impose the conditions of the early earth in a laboratory. Once those conditions have been replicated then what follows should be a reenactment of what happened on the ancient earth. There is no human manipulation during the experiment.
Certainly you know better...
Please.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Rob, posted 09-04-2007 9:08 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Rob, posted 09-04-2007 11:53 PM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 188 of 314 (419730)
09-04-2007 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Rob
09-04-2007 10:06 AM


Re: You just couldn't wait to drag in the Second Law, could you?
Rob writes:
Behe has never said ATP is irreducibly complex.
Yes, that's true, but I wasn't going to draw the distinction since you weren't. But since you've gone ahead and mentioned it (indicating you've now read chapter 7 of Darwin's Black Box?), Behe actually has two categories of problematic microbiological structures/processes. One he calls irreducibly complex, the other he describes in various terms that can be summed up as overwhelmingly unlikely.
Most commentators do not discriminate between Behe's two categories. For example, Jerry Bergman in a CRS article at TrueOrigins says:
Jerry Bergman writes:
ATP is an example of a molecule that displays irreducible complexity which cannot be simplified and still function (Behe, 1996).
The "Behe, 1996" portion is a reference to Darwin's Black Box.
Anyway, way back in Message 6 you claimed that ATP is required to create ATP. Are you now dropping that claim?
The rest of your message fails to address the topic, but it would serve very well as a new topic proposal.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Rob, posted 09-04-2007 10:06 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by molbiogirl, posted 09-04-2007 4:07 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 194 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 12:13 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 211 of 314 (419874)
09-05-2007 7:35 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by Rob
09-04-2007 11:53 PM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
Rob writes:
Percy:
Setting up the initial conditions can be construed as human intervention, but the intervention is with existing conditions in order to impose the insert: construed conditions of the early earth in a laboratory. Once those conditions have been replicated insert: even though they are construed then what follows should be a reenactment of what happened on the ancient earth. There is no human manipulation during the experiment.
That is why I highlighted the word 'supposed' in your last reply. Because we do not know what the conditions were. We only theorize based upon limited data.
There was no need to highlight the word "supposed" because I used it with purpose and intent, not because I temporarily forgot myself and gave the game away. Science is tentative, so there can be no guarantee (no proof) that we've nailed down the environmental conditions of the early earth. No proof ever. Increasing evidence might increase our confidence, but it can never reach certainty.
You made insertions to my text that include the word "construe", and this is the precisely right word. A construal is an interpretation. Our current thinking about environmental conditions on the early earth are interpretations of the available evidence. They are not 100% definite facts. Certainty is extremely rare in science, and some of us argue that there is no certainty anywhere in science, that even facts are tentative.
But your original objection ran along different lines. You seemed to believe that recreations and simulations include human interventions, which would, of course, be invalid. Hopefully you now see that that isn't the case.
Anyway, the original point I was making wasn't, "We know precisely how ATP was formed on the early earth." Rather, the point was, "Natural pathways exist for the production of ATP under conditions thought to exist on the early earth." And of course, this isn't actually my point, but almost everyone's point here in this thread, especially Molbiogirl who has done the legwork uncovering relevant citations.
To understand how strong a rebuttal this is you have to understand your original claim, which was that ATP can't be produced unless you already have some ATP. Molbiogirl provided citations to research indicating that the pre-existence of ATP is not required for the production of more ATP. This is all that was actually required to rebut your claim, but the research went beyond that. The conditions under which ATP was produced were not laboratory conditions, but conditions thought to replicate those of the early earth.
You provided a lengthy Behe excerpt about synthesizing AMP. His objection seems to be that the set of processes leading to AMP are far too difficult to have happened naturally. This is similar to your objection about ATP, for which Molbiogirl provided references indicating that such natural pathways do, in fact, exist. I'm sure she can do the same for AMP.
Let me again caution you about Behe. He is not very much a working scientist anymore. He primarily writes for the lay public trying to convince people that his views have merit. If he were a practicing scientist he would be writing technical papers for his peers so that a dialogue concerning his views could take place. Unfortunately he has not done this. He's gone to the lay public telling them his views are legitimate science, but what constitutes accepted science isn't subject to a popular vote. What the scientific community currently believes is what constitutes accepted science, and Behe has made no effort to present his views to this community.
In other words, when Behe tells the lay public that his views are legitimate science, he knows that by the standards of science this is not true, and he knows he is lying.
An aside: This thread has only 90 messages left, let's use them wisely. Please, no more one-line, content-free messages like Message 206 and Message 207. This is not a chat room. If you feel a discussion is at a stage where chat-style exchanges would be helpful because the other party appears to be on-line at the same time then post a single "Please meet me in the chat room" message.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by Rob, posted 09-04-2007 11:53 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 10:13 AM Percy has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 212 of 314 (419877)
09-05-2007 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Rob
09-05-2007 12:13 AM


Re: You just couldn't wait to drag in the Second Law, could you?
Rob writes:
All I was saying is that the factory itself (in this case a chloroplast) is made in the cell by way of a process that uses ATP. It is the chicken and the egg. That was my point.
I thought you had a larger point concerning where the original ATP came from, and the research from Molbiogirl's citations discuss possible production paths for ATP that may have existed prior to the evolution of the processes we find in modern cells which merely assume the availability of the ATP they produce.
Please don't feel the need to respond by quoting my text and highlighting the words "possible" and "may". Just remind yourself that science is tentative.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 12:13 AM Rob has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 216 of 314 (419893)
09-05-2007 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Rob
09-05-2007 10:13 AM


Re: There's been work done since 2004
Rob writes:
Percy:
Science is tentative, so there can be no guarantee (no proof) that we've nailed down the environmental conditions of the early earth. No proof ever. Increasing evidence might increase our confidence, but it can never reach certainty.
Science is believed by most to be empericism. It is theorized, tested, and confirmed (ie. it is proved). We then have what we call evidence.
That is what good science is...
What you're talking about is theory, and that is tentative. Because based upon the evidence, we can make all kinds of theories.
You've got a lot of the right words in there, but you've tangled them up into a confused and meaningless mess, plus you should never say "proved" when speaking scientifically. Rather than digressing into a discussion of the nature of science and the relationship between evidence and theory, let me just reiterate that we will never reach certainty about the conditions on the early earth.
Percy:
To understand how strong a rebuttal this is you have to understand your original claim, which was that ATP can't be produced unless you already have some ATP.
And I have since repositioned the question to reflect the real problem and I am told it is irrelevant becase of the a priori fact that it happened in some form as yet unknown. A position which you appearently support.
You're following a false line of reasoning and using some misleading terminology. It is true that we don't know the origin of ATP with certainty (and never will), but we have some possible candidate processes. Characterizing this situation as "it happened in some form as yet unknown" makes it seem as if we don't know of any possibilities, and that's not the case.
Your reasoning then continues that since we don't know if the possibilities we've identified are the correct ones, or if some as yet unidentified possibilities are the correct ones, that this implies a designer.
This is simple God-of-the-gaps reasoning. You're arguing that anything which we do not yet know is evidence of a designer. This is the type of reasoning Behe was trying to avoid.
What Behe believes is that there are some microbiological structures and processes that are irreducibly complex (and so could not have come about naturally) or incredibly unlikely from natural causes. He only concludes a designer for things which are impossible, or which have prohibitively small probabilities.
The formation of ATP through natural processes is neither irreducibly complex nor prohibitively unlikely. We know this because we've already discovered processes that generate ATP under replicated conditions of the early earth.
The reason you can't use Behe to rebut the research citations Molbiogirl has provided is because Behe is no longer very active within the scientific community. He hasn't submitted his ideas about irreducible complexity to the scientific community, and so no scientific dialogue about his ideas has yet taken place. For the most part Behe just continues making his case to the lay public while ignoring the rebuttals some scientists have provided of what he's published in the popular press.
You are assuming the existence of protocells and abiotic chemical soups that are not relevant to current biological function. And you have no proof or evidence for these systems.
You didn't ask about current biological function. You asked about the origins of energy conversion in life processes.
And of course we have no proof. There's no such thing as proof in science.
What we do have is evidence for what conditions may have been like on the early earth. This evidence comes from the examination and analysis of ancient geological layers, and from the analysis of the content of meteorites and comets and moons and other planets that provides hints about the composition of the early solar system. It is this evidence that scientists use in replicating what conditions may have been like on the early earth.
Concerning Lewontin, if you'd like to begin a discussion about the nature of science and evolution's qualifications as legitimate science, propose a new thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 10:13 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Rob, posted 09-05-2007 9:13 PM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 291 of 314 (420484)
09-08-2007 3:12 AM


Summation
The creationist side again advanced yet another incarnation of the argument that sufficient evidence exists to conclude that some things in the universe could never have come about naturally and so must have been designed. This time it was the energy processes of life.
A summation of the arguments against this view isn't really warranted. It is perhaps only worth noting the apparent fruitlessness of efforts to convince creationists how really difficult demonstrating a negative is.
--Percy

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 10:33 AM Percy 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