Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8972 total)
161 online now:
Diomedes, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, Tangle, Taq (6 members, 155 visitors)
Newest Member: Howyoudo
Post Volume: Total: 875,526 Year: 7,274/23,288 Month: 1,180/1,214 Week: 192/303 Day: 32/36 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Points for a creator (Alaninnont and Subbie only)
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 38 of 65 (504435)
03-28-2009 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by subbie
03-27-2009 5:26 PM


I'm most curious. Exactly what would constitute evidence that a creator doesn't exist?

Do you believe in the existence of the proton? No one has seen one. There is no hard empirical data that it exsits but that model of the atom best fits with what we observe in our universe. I would think that evidence for your belief system would be an explanation of the universe as we see it without any external input.

Sorry, I assumed you were rational. My mistake.

No problem. We all make them sometimes. (tic)

I haven't spent much time with it. But, I wouldn't classify it as a creationist site, either.

While there are some differences, I do in fact group IDers in with creationists for a variety of reasons.

The second quotation is yours from an earlier post. Mike Gene is an ID proponent and thus qualifies in your mind as a creationist.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 03-27-2009 5:26 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by subbie, posted 03-28-2009 11:49 AM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 40 of 65 (504490)
03-29-2009 7:16 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by subbie
03-28-2009 11:49 AM


There is in fact a great deal of hard empirical evidence that protons exist.

That would depend on how you define hard empirical evidence. What is this evidence that you have found?

That would be science.

No. That would be atheism.

I'll probably end up having to plead ignorance and stand mute as far as Mike Gene is concerned. Much of what he writes is far outside of what I'm familiar with.

It does appear that he is at least capable of understanding how science works and recognizing when ID gets it wrong. This post from a science blog discusses something that he said at another site that's now apparently shut down, where he acknowledges that the bacterial flagellum is an example of evolutionary co-option, and not evidence of intelligent design.

Not quite right. There are two major groups of IDers. Some believe that a creator created the universe, possibly set up the right conditions for life on this planet, created the first cell or cells, and then left the world and evolution to take its own course. Others believe that the creator also tweaked evolution during its course to guide it toward a certain result. Mike Gene is in the first group. He talks a lot about front-loading. That is that the creator put into place systems and tool kits that weren't needed for the first cells but had to be in place for more evolved cells down the line. If you look back in his posts, you'll see he has some good evidence for his position. In the article you are refering to he says that new evidence has lent more support for cooption in the falgellum (not definitive mind you) which does not support his version of ID.
This was the area I was going to investigate next (how involved the creator is with evolution if at all) after I got a handle on the creator vs. no creator issue. Is this something you'd be willing to discuss? I know you don't believe in a creator but if you would treat it as an intellectual exercise, it might be very enlightening for me since you would probably be more subjective.

If not, how would you like to proceed. I get the feeling you don't want to discuss your beliefs and evidence. Do you have any feedback on my second point? Would you like to go on to my third point?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by subbie, posted 03-28-2009 11:49 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by subbie, posted 04-01-2009 12:20 AM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 04-01-2009 12:36 AM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 43 of 65 (504702)
04-01-2009 7:31 PM


Yes, he does talk a lot about it, doesn't he? Does he ever clearly define what he means by "front loading?" As far as I've been able to determine, he seems to be saying that all the genetic information was present from the beginning and simply unfolded from there. Is that accurate?

If so, it seems to me that he'd have to explain what kept all of that genetic information present through billions of years so that it would be there when needed. Does he ever propose any kind of program to determine whether evidence of this genetic front loading can be found? Or is he content to simply assert without any evidential basis that it might have happened? In other words, is there any way that his suggestion can be tested?

I think that is a pretty good capsulation. I'm not really clear on the definitions. As I said, that is the area I was going to investigate next. I agree with you that is seems highly unlikely that a cell set in motion could reach a designated result after so many years. Perhaps he believes that there was no plan for a particular outcome. Let me read some of his stuff and see what he says. If this is the area we are heading into, a may take me a while responding sometimes. My methods are rather methodical. (some would say anal).

And I get the feeling that you're not reading what I've written. I've discussed my beliefs and what I perceive to be the evidence. Perhaps the reason you believe that atheists refuse to respond to your points is that you're simply not reading (or comprehending) the responses.

I've read back through the posts and your beliefs and your evidence for your beliefs is that (summarized) you don't believe in a creator because you don't see evidence for one. Is that it?

Start here. Also, this discusses how Rutherford discovered discovered the proton.

Rutherford proposed the model of the proton because it answered the questions raised be what was observed in the characteristics of the atom. I propose the model of a creator for the same reasons.

I'm very confused. You asked me for an explanation of the universe without any external input, I replied that I considered science to be that explanation. You then, rather cryptically, seemed to call science atheism.

It sounded to me like you were saying that my statement was the definition of science.

Perhaps we need to define terms. Atheism is a belief that there are no gods. Science is not a belief that there are no gods. Science is a method for gathering information about the real world. Science does not assume there is no god. Science simply looks for naturalistic explanations. Because most definitions of god include some element of what is commonly called the supernatural, science excludes god from the area into which it can delve. But this is far from saying there is no god.

I agree with the first four sentences. Science looks for explanations. Science simply looks for explanations. Science is the current set of guidelines we are using for figuring out the answers to questions. There have been other sets of guidelines before it. It stands to reason that there will be others in the future. It is a great system but not perfect as this particular raging debate demonstrates.

Think of it this way. The rules of baseball describe how a certain athletic competition is to be carried out. Nowhere in the rules of baseball will you see any reference to god.

It's interesting that an intelligent being created the rules for the game and the baseball diamond and other intelligent beings make sure that the rules are followed.

Re: the quote/quotation controversy
My friend the English teacher says that it is the difference between Canadian versus American usage. Apparently there are other words such as "practice" which is a noun and a verb in the U.S. whereas in Canada "practice" is the noun and "practise" is the verb. There are as well numerous spelling differences. I apologize for the accusation. I did not consider this possibility.


Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by subbie, posted 04-02-2009 11:15 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 45 of 65 (504895)
04-04-2009 9:09 AM


Then your statement "That is atheism" is even more cryptic.

I am coming to some conclusions about internet communications. I have heard in studies that as high as 90 % of communication is non-verbal. I have never internalized this but am beginning to. One of the problems with internet discussions is that you only have a small amount of the communication information. You recieve a statement and you hear no funny, sarcastic, mean, inquisitive, teasing, etc. tone of voice and can see none of the minute changes in body language and expression that contribute so much to the schema. While looking through the discussions on this site, I see a lot of it as confrontational. It may or may not be but I think that humans, being competative, often jump to the conclusion that statements are attacks when many of them probably aren't. The anonymity of people on the internet probably adds to this. Whenever someone is attacked, the tendency is for them to become defensive and attack back. Therefore many of the discussions on this site deteriorate into unproductive bickering rather than an exchange of ideas.
This has nothing to do with anything. I'm just musing again. I'm a marathoner and so have A LOT of time to think during training runs.

To the task at hand. From what I understand, we are going to talk about whether the creator directed evolution or began it and left it alone. I absolutely realize and respect (serious tone) that you do not believe that there is a creator but you are doing this (appreciative tone) to provide some subjective feedback to my thought processes. I'd like to start by ignoring information from others as it can sway my opinions. I'd like to go through it in my own head first to sort out the ideas.

First, here is some information that is highly probable.
The earth is millions or billions of years old.
Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.
The DNA/RNA process of replication is universal to all living things on earth.
Within a species there can be many phenotypical differences.
There are cases of similarities in physiology between species. (the digits of the hand in humans as compared to the wings or birds, etc.)
The compounds common to life on earth are proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and lipids.
There is an incredible variety of life on earth.

Do you have any comments on these?


Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 04-04-2009 10:27 PM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 47 of 65 (504928)
04-05-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by subbie
04-04-2009 10:27 PM


Billions, 4.54 billion, give or take.

I'm somewhat skeptical about the accuracy of dating methods. They rely on many assumptions and that is why I covered myself by saying millions or billions. Yes, I know that it is a number that has been thrown around for many years but an inaccuracy many times repeated still makes it an inaccuracy. The peppered moth fallacy is a case in point. I'm not saying that it is incorrect. I am more comfortable saying that the earth is millions or billions years old.

Most likely the first organisms were very simple ones, but they were preceded by organic molecules.

I don't think I'm going to agree with you here. Anything I've seen has indicated that the first organisms were highly complex. By saying "preceded" you seem to be suggesting that the organic molecules needed for a living cell self-assembled which also does not fit observable data.

Well, I don't know that I'd agree that all of these compounds are found in all kinds of "life," but I'd agree that those are commonly found.

Viruses have to be inside a cell that has these four basic molecules to replicate and may not be considered alive. What others are there? Are we not on the same page when we're talking about life? We should perhaps settle which things are alive and which are dead before we proceed.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by subbie, posted 04-04-2009 10:27 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:16 PM alaninnont has not yet responded
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:32 PM alaninnont has responded
 Message 50 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:35 PM alaninnont has not yet responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 51 of 65 (505372)
04-10-2009 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by subbie
04-05-2009 1:32 PM


Re: First organisms
Sorry I took so long in replying. It's been a busy week. Thank God for Easter. (chuckle)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple organisms appeared earliest in earth's history according to fossils and continued in a trend toward more complex organisms.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I took this statement to mean that the organisms that first appeared were simpler than organisms that appeared later. Now, you seem to be changing the context, arguing that the first organisms were "highly complex." Please clarify: do you mean to be comparing early organisms to later organisms, or are you comparing them to something else? If the latter, please explain what comparison you intend to discuss, and why you think such a discussion would be significant.

Yes, you are right. I was speaking relatively.

Again, please cite me the sources that describe the "observable data" that contradicts the idea of organic molecules self-assembling.

Actually, if you read my statement carefully, you'll see that I didn't say anything about how the organic molecules formed. I merely said that they must have preceded the organisms, since that's what the organisms were made of. It seems self-evident to me that the parts that came together to form the first organisms must have been there before the organisms themselves. If you have another idea how this might have happened, I'd be very curious to hear it.

During one of my Master's courses in Mircrobiology we were given the assignment to come up with a model for the first living cell. We keeners trotted off and here is what we decided. There are many models for the first living cell but a minimum requirement must be the ability to replicate. Viruses have the smallest numbers of base pairs in their genetic code but we immediately ruled them out because they need another living cell in order to replicate. The simplest organisms we see today (observable data) are either prokayotic bacteria or archaea. The smallest DNA molecule of these is about 500 000 base pairs. In these relatively simple single cell organisms, there are an incredible host of chemical reactions that are needed to keep the cell alive. I think it would be theoretically possible to create a reproducing organism with fewer base pairs and chemical reactions but none have been found so the following is speculation.

You need a semi-permeable cell membrane. It must be able to keep out the molecules and chemicals that would interfere with the reactions in the cell and allow in the molecules that are needed. What we see in cells today is a phospholipid bi-layer. It is possible that something else may have made up the first living cell but I am going with observable data. If you break (lyse) the cell membrane, the cell does not divde. So, you need the lipids and phosphates present and you need to bind them together in a sphere.

You need molecules that can provide energy to the cell. The molecule adenosine triphosphate (ATP)is universally used in living things today. Along with this you need an enzyme that will split off the phosphate with its high energy bond to form adenosine diphosphate. This protein (ATPase) is a specific sequence of amino acids and if the amino acids are not in the correct order, they will not fold properly and therefore not be funtional. Because amino acids are not self-assembling, you will need some kind of mechanism to assemble the amino acid chain. There may have been other energy molecules available to the first living cell but they have not been found so again, I am going with observable data. Not only do you need many of these molecules present to drive the chemical reactions, you need them inside the spherical cell membrane.

You need a DNA/RNA molecule. The smallest one that we found is 500 000 base pairs. I think that it would be possible to create life with something smaller but I speculate that the molecule would need to be in the hundred of thousands. Nucleic acids also have attached phosphates and sugars. There are four different kinds in DNA and they must be in the correct order with the possibility of a tiny percent of error. The probability of these lining up in the correct order is infentesimally small. To replicate this molecule you again need enzymes (DNA polymerase as a starter), nucleic acids to form the new chain and transfer RNA. Again, the protein molecules must be in the correct order and there must be a mechanism to assemble them. So, you need these materials present in the cell in high enough concentrations and the mechanisms to assemble them. The DNA molecule is like a code, similar to computer code. Instead of being binary, it has four options. Every amino acid is encoded by a set of three nucleotides (codon). There is a stop codon at the end of the particular segment of the genetic code that creates a certain protein. The RNA created for the protein rachets through, three at a time to link together the amino acids (assuming that they are available) to create the proteins. It is possible that there was some other code to create life in the first cell but I am going with (say it with me) observable data. The DNA/RNA molecule is again universal to life. So, you would need all the nucleotide bases, phosphates, and sugars present with the hundreds of thousands of nucleic acids in the correct order all present in high enough concentrations inside the cell. I have heard the speculations of protocell but they seem highly unlikely to me because of the preceeding and the degradation of all molecules over time.

This is becoming long and possibly boring so I'll skip along. Besides these molecules and mechanisms you would need something that would create another cell membrane, a mechanism to orchestrate the division, and something that would keep the reactions separate so chemicals from one mechanism would not bind to and interfere with other processes. We speculated that there would need to be a minimum of 12 proteins needed but ......

Louis Pasteur, while working on spontaneous generation, came to the conclusion that all living things come from other living things. This hypothesis has stood for 150 years despite some concentrated effort to come up an alternative. It is easier for me to accept a theory that has stood the test of time rather than some speculative organisms for which there is no fossil record or observable data.

Sorry about the feeble attempts at hmour but you know that with microbiologists there's always a fungi.

Edited by alaninnont, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by subbie, posted 04-05-2009 1:32 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 04-16-2009 5:40 PM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 53 of 65 (505845)
04-18-2009 8:19 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by subbie
04-16-2009 5:40 PM


Re: First organisms
As fascinating as your story is, I'm afraid the point is lost on me. Organisms are complex. So what?

I was responding to your statements that "they(organic molecules) must have preceded the organisms" and "It seems self-evident to me that the parts that came together to form the first organisms must have been there before the organisms themselves." My point was that observable data, scientific models, and logic do not support these ideas.

As far as Pasteur is concerned, you are completely off base. Pasteur was disproving the notion that life spontaneously arises on an every day basis with experiments that took days to perform. He never even considered the question about how life might have began billions of years ago in processes that took tens of millions of years. If you disagree, you need to describe in detail what you think Pasteur's experiments consisted of and exactly why they are relevant to the beginning of life.

Pasteur was working on spontaneous generation and he came to the conclusion that all life comes from other life. If you disagree with this hypothesis, please provide your evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by subbie, posted 04-16-2009 5:40 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 9:45 AM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 55 of 65 (505866)
04-18-2009 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by subbie
04-18-2009 9:45 AM


Re: First organisms
So, you're saying that organisms appeared before the stuff they were made from?

No. I'm saying that the evidence isn't there. As I stated before, the observable data indicates that the first cells were incredibly complex. Our (the keeners) "model" of the first living cell is entirely fictional. In reality the simplest cell we have found is incredibly complex. The spliceosome (while biologist have talents in many areas, I have come to the conclusion that creative nomeclature is not one of them) for example contains 140 proteins and five RNA molecules. The membrane-bound electron transport chain is an amazing energy producing machine. Even in the simplest of organisms, we haven't come anywhere close to identifying all of the chemical pathways.

I did, in my last post.

No, you didn't. Pasteur's conclusion still stands.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 9:45 AM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 6:35 PM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 57 of 65 (505901)
04-19-2009 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by subbie
04-18-2009 6:35 PM


Re: First organisms
So how were the first complex living organism(s) created?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by subbie, posted 04-18-2009 6:35 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 04-19-2009 9:37 PM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 59 of 65 (506146)
04-23-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 58 by subbie
04-19-2009 9:37 PM


Re: First organisms
I can't help but notice the similarities between your belief system and that of some fundamentallist religious groups. Your belief is based of faith. When you encounter things you can't explain, you still believe and say you don't know and probably never will. You claim that the opposing views tell lies and are inaccurate but you don't have any evidence. When asked for evidence for your beliefs you say that the evidence is that there's no evidence to the contrary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by subbie, posted 04-19-2009 9:37 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 4:24 PM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 61 of 65 (506203)
04-23-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by subbie
04-23-2009 4:24 PM


Re: First organisms
What belief system is that? So far, the only thing that I've said about "belief" is that I don't believe in a creator.

Which is belief system.

Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't make much impact on me.

None were given or intended.

I can only conclude that you either lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I've said...

Petty insults and tu quoque fallacies don't have much of an impact on me.

While you made a number of good points and gave me some new ideas when discussing the original creation of the universe, I have found your other input somewhat sparse. You have spent a lot of time in accusations and asking for sources and evidence. While I think I understand your motives for this, it is not supplying the discussion with new information or moving it forward. As I said in a previous post, I have been finding it unproductive of late.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 4:24 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 11:25 PM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 63 of 65 (506288)
04-24-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by subbie
04-23-2009 11:25 PM


Re: First organisms
Really? You find my dismissal of something for which there is no evidence to be similar to their acceptance of something for which there is no evidence. Curious.

Your evidence is that nobody has proven the contrary. A creationist could just as well say that they believe in God because nobody has proved that he doesn't exist. What's the difference?

Curious that you chose to ignore the fact that I laid out several different options. Also, the effect of parroting my words back at me is diminished considerably given that you obviously don't know what a tu quoque fallacy is.

You're right. My latin is a bit rusty.(practically nonexistant) The comment was parroted to show you that you assumed an insult when none was given.

Perhaps after you've been debating for a while....

Perhaps here is the problem. I don't see this as a debate while it seems you do. I'm looking for information and new ideas and these have been in short supply.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by subbie, posted 04-23-2009 11:25 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 04-24-2009 10:41 PM alaninnont has responded

  
alaninnont
Member (Idle past 3946 days)
Posts: 107
Joined: 02-27-2009


Message 65 of 65 (506317)
04-25-2009 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by subbie
04-24-2009 10:41 PM


Re: First organisms
I'm going to stop posting on this thread Subbie. Thanks for the discussion and your input.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by subbie, posted 04-24-2009 10:41 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020