Life is not natural - but you can't tell that to a child or most people. Even in a science forum like this some just can't get it.
Can you qualify what you mean by "life" and "natural" and then provide evidence that supports this assertion. Otherwise, this is just undefined, meaningless conjecture.
Tony writes:
Life is a masterfully created illusion - and it does not depend on what you belief or not. It does not care if you can understand that fact ever within you life time or not. You were created to Believe in the illusion, designed to see the illusion as a "fact of reality". ==Tony
Again, unsubstantiated conjecture. Back up your assertions with evidence.
Tony writes:
Most of us can't even know what life truly is as a starting point of understanding, never mind the great creator of the whole universe.
Yawn. Stop preaching. Can you provide any real substansive scientific evidence to back your beliefs? Otherwise you are just regurgitating the Discovery Institute's PRATTS and no one will take you seriously on this board.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Sadly, it would seem that many people are attracted to the label of intelligent design without fully understanding what it means.
Fallen, what is there to understand? I am not sure which side of the issue you fall on but can anyone (pro or against) provide a single coherent SCIENTIFIC theory that "intelligent design" proposes?
The very idea of "intelligent design" aka supernatural intervention falls outside the realm of acceptable science theory therefore one cannot use this as a valid underpinning of a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is not to say that supernatural intervention is philosophically impossible, just that science cannot directly address it, because science itself is defined as describing predictable natural phenomena not unpredictable, capricious supernatural phenomena.
IMHO, the idea of intelligent design belongs solely in philosophy and religion classes not in legitimate science classes (both in high school and college).
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Re: Life is a masterfully created look real - illusion
Tony writes:
In playing mind games with some friends of mine, I would ask the question "what is life", and after giving the Text book definition, I point out what Respire / respiration does sound a lot like a mechanical device. You know like a car, the Gas goes in, the machine turns and compresses the gas and air the it ignites the fuel, and pow the work is done, the pistons arm pushes out.
So in the same way respire sound so much just like that. If that turns out to be all that "life" is then we are all fools and life is not real and we are just machines "THINKING" are "living".
Can anyone (dare try) really find the magical difference between man and machine. Is there any real magic in life that machines can never have. Give me that kind of definition of life if you can.
Basically is the function of metabolising a mechanical act or something magical only to life? I say there is no life here, no magic, just basic mechanical functions of a machine.
Dare to bet on this one???
Hmm, not much I disagree with here. I think the only thing we probably disagree on is whether these living "machines" can develop and evolve via natural means with no supernatural intervention or the opposite.
I also think where you going awry in your anthropomorphic reasoning is this: does life imitate human-made machines or is it really that human-made machines are created to imitate the structure and functions we see in nature and life around us? I would venture the latter.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
The thread is about intelligent design, supposedly a branch of science. Why are you interjecting the supernatural into what is otherwise a naturalistic field of study?
Why is it you always think intelligence must be SUPERNATURAL.
If this intelligence that created life is not supernatural than the question must be asked: Where did this intelligent life come from? How did it originate?
Tony writes:
Are all creatures with some level of intelligence now to be called supernatural by "scientists".
If they defy a natural explanation for their existence, YES!
Tony writes:
Why is it you think we can not prove it was intelligently designed, just because you think intelligence must be supernatural and therefore impossible to prove?
You must provide evidence for this "natural" intelligent designer first. Using the guideline of Occams razor/principle of parsimony, it just does not make since to add to the question of how life began by adding the complexity of natural, intelligent design which in itself requires the question to be asked of where and how did this "natural intelligent designer" come into being in the first place. Thus you are just pushing off the question of how life began to now this intelligent designer (this is also the problem with the panspermia hypothesis).
Also, an all-powerful, omni-potent, omniscient being aka a "god", which created all that there is, is not bound by natural phenomena and can capriously defy all natural laws at any time it damn-well feels like it, is by its very definition SUPERNATURAL not NATURAL.
Tony writes:
If you can't identify something intelligently designed then the problem is with you, not with the evidence, or the existence of the creator that designed it.
Can you explain how dirt is intelligently designed? How about a proton? Can you explain how we can tell quarks are intelligently designed? Please enlighten us?
Tony writes:
This all starts with you more then it does with God almighty. If your a complete "X%#@$&*" then all the evidence in the whole universe is meaningless if the hearer can't understand what is being stated.
??? Well your post is then meaningless because I can't understand what the logic is in your rambling, incoherent sentances.
Tony writes:
So proving intelligent design is more an IQ test for you, then it is a problem of lack of evidence.
Incorrect (logical fallacy: burden of proof). The burden of proof lies in the one trying to assert the existence of something (in your case an intelligent designer), not with the one who is not asserting the existance of something. This is a typical theist PRATT as illustrated by the Philosopher and Nobel loriate Bertrand Russell's 'Russel's Teapot' analogy:
Bertrand Russel writes:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Of course Richar Dawkins put's a great spin on Russell's analogy as shown below:
Richard Dawkins writes:
The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell’s teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don’t exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don’t stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don’t warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don’t kneecap those who put the tea in first.
Tony writes:
If you can't understand the simplicity of the question so as to see the simplicity of the answer right in front of you. Then your the defect as regards logic and not the evidence.
Special pleading, appeal to emotion and appeal to ridicule. Deriding the opposing side does not do anything to bulster your own claim. Only a logically sound argument supported by evidence will help your case.
Tony writes:
Well, of course not all persons have a logical argument, but this is not the case here is it. You just can't see so you think I am the blind one.
LOL. Are you ever going to provide any semblance of evidence to support your case? Please entice us with your vast intellect, I am dying to here more
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
If this intelligence that created life is not supernatural than the question must be asked: Where did this intelligent life come from? How did it originate?
Simplicity of the argument works best.
Which is exactly why you are losing this argument.
Tony writes:
This linking "intelligent design" with the un-knowable supernatural is just the Atheist's way to derail the argument and cloud the real issues.
"Intelligence" does not equal supernatural nor does "intelligent design" even suggest you must be supernatural.
So you keep forgetting what this debate is really about. It is intelligent design, not the existence of the supernatural, and a un-knowable God.
Stop avoiding the question. I don't care if this intelligent designer is natural or supernatural. Again, where did this intelligent agent come from and what is the evidence that it exists?
Tony writes:
So to sum it up, there is TONS of evidence of intelligent design.
Like what....? Please provide me just one piece of evidence from this "TONS of evidence".
To sum it up, you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence that this intelligent designer (natural or supernatural) exists.
Tony writes:
The "supernatural" is another story for another day....not related to this one.
BTW, if you are claiming this intelligent designer of life on Earth is not supernatural, than it must be an alien from somewhere else in this universe and thus not have the supernatural powers of your God (though it may be very advanced compared to us humans). How does this fit in with your religion? And again how did the alien intelligent designer originate?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Re: Intelligent design, the epitome of elusive reasoning and deliberate obfuscation!
Tony writes:
The questions you are now asking are of a religious nature, and have little or nothing to do with science because what your asking is out of our grasp to achieve at this time.
How so? You are the one bringing the whole intelligent designer bit into this, not me. All I am asking is evidence for the existence of your intelligent designer. All you give me is the run around, bullshit answers and religious rantings.
ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION AND STOP BEING SO ELUSIVE! What is the evidence that your 'intelligent designer' exists? And what is your theory of how he/she/it originated? There is nothing religious in my question except how you possibly will answer it.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Intelligent design, the epitome of elusive circular reasoning and deliberate obfuscation!
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
We have no clue what happened before the Big Bang, if there was even a 'before'. Currently, cosmological models predict that time as well as space (time and space are actually two functions of the same entity called spacetime) began at the Big Bang. Therefore it makes no sense to ask what happened before time began at the Big Bang just like it makes no sense to ask what is north of the north pole.
Gravity is not normal, and so did not always exist.
Banging head into wall. What is exactly your definition of 'normal'. According to you none of reality is 'normal' (whatever 'normal' is?).
And how do you know exactly what is normal and what is not normal? The word 'normal' is a subjective word, just like other misconstrued terms like "complexity" and "intelligence" that creationists and IDers like to throw about with no clue to its utter subjectiveness. These subjective words have to have a frame of reference in order for them to make any sense whatsoever. What are you using to reference the term "normal" of off? Just your frame of reference? The whole of humanity? What?
It is not a given that it always existed.
And how in your infinite intelligence do you know what has or has not always existed? Not even theoretical physicists would make such a unsubstantiated claim as this without providing some bit of logic and evidence to back him up. That is what seperates you (and many other religious fundamentalists) from science, the idea that you speak in absolutes with no evidence to support your claims.
Gravity is thought to be CREATED by particle called a graviton (energy field of some kind).
That is a very simplistic way of thinking of gravity, but in truth it is much more detailed than how you depict it. Gravity is not "created" by the graviton. Rather hypothetical gravitons (which have yet to be detected) are thought to be the mediators of the gravitational forces that attracts matter to each other. These aren't solid, tangible particles but rather wave functions of probability (as is all elementary particles) much in the same way in which electromagnetic energy such as light is carried along by massless particles called photons. I won't go into the details here as that is a totally seperate topic.
Tony writes:
The same is true with all the other forces.
What is your point?
Tony writes:
Before the big bang physical life did not exist nor could it.
Again, modern cosmological models predict that time began at the Big Bang and thus there is no 'before'. So I guess in a matter of speaking you are right to say that life did not or could not exist before it, because there is no 'before'.
Tony writes:
It needed to be created and it needed matter to exist to be the blocks to create it from.
Now you are applying anthropomorphic rationale into your debate. Why does life "need" to be created?
Looking at how prolific life is (especially here on Earth) once certain parameters are met, it is easy to see how life could have occurred through natural means. With the shere number of galaxies in the universe (at least 100 billion) and the number of planets that typically could be in one galaxy (at least 100s of millions to several billion). This would indicated (conservatively) that there are at a minimum several quadrillion planets in the universe (1,000,000,000,000,000,). Even if life was very rare and occurred only at a rate of 1 in a million, this extremely conservative calculation would indicate that over 1 billion planets in the universe should have some form of life on it.
Tony writes:
So matter is not normal for it did not always exist but had to come into existence.
It makes no sense to talk about the normality and nonexistence of matter, as matter, energy, space and time are all intricatelly linked together in the spacetime framework of the cosmos in which we exist. If you ask what occurred before matter existed than it would be akin to asking what existed before time began.
Tony writes:
And so to, life is not normal for the same reason. It never always existed, but came into existence later.
And you know this because?
Tony writes:
Life is only designed to "look" real and "look" alive.
Another unsubstantiated claim. How do you know that life is intelligently designed?
To "look" and "feel" alive are human traits that we put on life to try and categorize it as seperate from non-living matter. However, when we get down to the molecular and atomic levels, there really is no difference between life and non-life except in the way specific molecules and atoms are arranged. It is only when we see things from a macroscopic level that can we see morphological and physiological differences between life and non-life.
Tony writes:
There never was anything alive to begin with.
Ok, and?
Tony writes:
"Life" is a fool’s paradise, only the "fooled" think they are "living" entities.
Whether or not you want to call your self "alive" is just semantics. You do live in the real world in which "life" (or whatever you want to call it) must have certain criteria met for them to continue "living" and not die. If you stop breathing you will die. If you do not get an adequate amount of caloric input you will die. If a plant does not get an adequate supply of water it dies, etc in finitim. Inorganic rocks don't meet this criteria of life/death and therefore we classify them as non-living.
If you think "life" is an illusion than your whole reality is essentially an illusion on par with the Matrix. However, I would venture to guess that you, being part of this reality, are not going to put your faith in your own "illusion of reality" idea and step foot in front of an 18 wheeler barelling down the highway. Rather, you will put faith in your own mortality and the notion that you are a "living" entity with certain bodily needs i.e. not to be brutally maimed and crushed by a big rig and that you would much rather live to see your grandchildren. Correct me if I am wrong here.
Tony writes:
So by the fact you’re a machine (without a true life force) you’re by this fact not real to what you thought you were. The living "you" does not exist. The machine made to look like you is all you got. You’re not normal if you’re just a machine "designed to look alive". Physical life does not exist and is not real, just as illusions are not the real thing.
The "living" you will become real familiar with the force of gravity and its deadly effects if you jump out of an airplane with no parachute, irregardless of whether you think you really exist or not.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Re: All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
Tony writes:
Myself writes:
Now you are applying anthropomorphic rationale into your debate. Why does life "need" to be created?
Looking at how prolific life is (especially here on Earth) once certain parameters are met, it is easy to see how life could have occurred through natural means. With the shere number of galaxies in the universe (at least 100 billion) and the number of planets that typically could be in one galaxy (at least 100s of millions to several billion). This would indicated (conservatively) that there are at a minimum several quadrillion planets in the universe (1,000,000,000,000,000,). Even if life was very rare and occurred only at a rate of 1 in a million, this extremely conservative calculation would indicate that over 1 billion planets in the universe should have some form of life on it.
I've already killed that beast a long time ago. You don't remember do you? You learned nothing from this forum, you learn "0".
No, you have not. You have not once provided any evidence to back up your claim that life has to be "created". You have not once explained exactly why or how life has to be "created". Michamus states this well (and I have stated over and over at nauseum in this thread as well):
Michamus writes:
You are stating a hypothesis as fact, without providing any facts to substantiate it.
Tony writes:
All "life" can't exist unless it is made, constructed, assembled.
Do organic molecules such as amino acids exist? Do they have to come from "life"? Can organic molecules originate on there own without human intervention? Can we find them elsewhere outside the Earth?
Scientists have already found amino acids and the precursors to RNA and DNA in space:
How difficult would it be for the chemicals to exist on one of the quadrillion planets that exist in the universe and for life to develop therewith?
Dr. Geoffrey Blake writes:
If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube, and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you'll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine," said Keck Astronomer Dr. Geoffrey Blake, of the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena and co-author of the paper.
also
While the precise events leading up to self-replicating nucleic acids remains unclear, the molecules of acetylene (C2H2) and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) have been shown to produce the base compounds necessary to build RNA and DNA. The team found that the abundance of hydrogen cyanide (HCN) was nearly 10,000 times higher than that found in cold interstellar gas from which stars and planets are born.
Tony writes:
There needs to be some smart programming instructions with enough intelligence built into the code, to automatically self-assemble with the use of bio-machinery already there waiting for instructions.
And you know this because? We are talking about an evolving chemical system. Biological life did not begin with the complexity that we see today in cells. We are now beginning to understand how RNA and other simpler organic molecules could have evolved into the more complex self-assembing structures that we see today in cellular biology:
Case in point:
Here is some light reading for you:
Luisi, Pier Luigi (2006). The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology. Cambridge University Press.
Martin, W. and Russell M.J. (2002). "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological sciences 358: 59—85. doi:10.1098/rstb.2002.1183.
Hartman, Hyman (1998). "Photosynthesis and the Origin of Life". Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 28 (4—6): 515—521. doi:10.1023/A:1006548904157.
Harris, Henry (2002). Things come to life. Spontaneous generation revisited. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198515383.
Fernando CT, Rowe, J (2007). "Natural selection in chemical evolution". Journal of Theoretical Biology 247: 152—67. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2007.01.028.
Arrhenius, Gustaf; et al. (1997). "Entropy and Charge in Molecular Evolutionthe Case of Phosphate". Journal of Theoretical Biology 187 (4): 503—522. doi:10.1006/jtbi.1996.0385.
Davies, Paul (1998). The Fifth Miracle. Penguin Science, London. ISBN 0-140-28226-2.
De Duve, Christian (January 1996). Vital Dust: The Origin and Evolution of Life on Earth. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-09045-1.
Tony writes:
This is what is meant by life only comes from life.
Put up or shut up. Here I will spell it out for you.
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE???
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
I think what is missing from Tony's posts here is the understanding of who possesses this "common knowledge". Clearly, this "common knowledge" he speaks of actually exists only in the minds of people who really fail to understand or care to understand what the question really means, much less how to answer it.
The question of "how can life come from nonlife" to a scientist is not even a valid question since:
a. You have to define terms i.e. what is and is not 'life' and "what does it mean for 'life' to come from other 'life' or 'nonlife'?" b. Even if life and all its functionality is defined as per point 'a', how can you indicate on a molecular level what life is and isn't (trick question: you can't, 'life' does not exist in the realm of individual atoms and molecules)?
As a result science does not and should not answer purposfully vague and ambiguous questions such as "can life come from nonlife" until scientists burrow down and examine what exactly life is and is not. It is really as simple as that.
As Percy indicated earlier this is an argument ad popularim in which even the 'ad popularim' is only a portion of the unknowledgeable public who knowingly or unknowingly remain ignorant on this subject and attempt to defend this ignorance.
BTW, Michemus, good luck to you in Afghanistan and wish the best for you, your family and your fellow soldiers in arms.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
This has turned from a science related thread discussing physical evidence for the existence of "supernatural designer" to a faith based, no-evidence-required religious thread with nearly every IDer and creationist in the forum bandwagoning onto Tony's unsubstantiated rants with phrases like "Aye aye".
Unfortunately, this thread has now just turned into a shouting match between the two sides: one side saying that "life needs a designer" without any type of emperical evidence why and the other side saying "Where's the beef?" aka where is the evidence requiring this natural/supernatural designer.
I myself am done with this one sided joke of a debate until the other side can provide some sort of evidence/data/etc that we can analyze to determine if a "designer" is required or not.
Like I have said over and over, the onus is on the one asserting the existence of something i.e. a designer, not the one who is not asserting the existence of something. We can see, touch, feel, detect, observe and analyze biological "life"/"living systems" or whatever you want to call it Tony. Can we see, touch, feel, detect, observe this designer of yours?
BTW, if you respond to this without providing any sort of evidence, than I (and probably most of the scientificly minded people on this board) will take that as meaning you are metaphorically speaking pulling this shit out of your ass and will not entertain this idiotic monologue with a response. And no, philosophical/religious musings about how living organisms are really machines that we don't and can't ever understand and that we should just trust you (and your deity) DOES NOT constitute as emperical evidence, just unscientific religious blabber which helps no one.
[Stepping off the soap box]
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
If your endowed with the minimum level of parts to achieved a automated self-replicating system then you can qualify to be labelled by man as a "living system".
Actually self-replicating is only one portion of the full definition of what scientists consider a "living system". A virus self-replicate but is not considered a biological organism or "living system" because it does not meet all the paremeters of what we consider life.
The general concesus of what science considers life/living systems to be is: matter, which as the physicist Schrodinger wrote, "avoids the decay into equilibrium". In other words life can autonomously equalize or even decrease the level of entropy through metabolism (converting biologically unusable energy/matter into bioloigically usable energy/matter).
Clearly, viruses, machines, etc cannot autonomously conduct metabolism and decrease its own entropy whereas biological "life" can.
"Life" is now quite vague today.
It is only vague if you do not use a common definition of what life is, as shown above. The term "life" only makes since if we all agree what the paremeters of life are (in other words what differentiates life from non-life). The definition of what life is and is not, is really a concensus of what scientists consider life to be. I guess you could consider the term "life" vague in the same way that we can determine the term "universe" vague. These terms are just labels to help us understand each other, categorize what we see in nature, and come to a common understanding of the world around us.
Tony writes:
Calling a machine alive or not alive is mixing mythical ignorance with modern biology. If you guys would just put down your "life is some kind of black magic" religious Mythical ideas you would see the true reality of this thing we call existence.
It is only "black magic" to you because you really do not understand it. You don't even understand your own ignorance in the subject.
Tony writes:
Complete automated systems (Life) can not arise from non-atomically, non-complex, non-complete systems.
Why not? Can you demonstrate why this is the case besides your unsubstantiated musings? Put the evidence where your mouth is.
Tony writes:
That video is crap mythical ignorance.
Why? Please show specifically where it is wrong. Otherwise you are just showing how ignorant of the subject you are.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Welcome NanoGecko and thank you for providing some semblance of evidence to substantiate the ID claim. Why has it taken 232 posts before someone can provide a bit of evidence to back up this claim (not your fault, I am referrring to the illusive Tony and other tag-along creationists)? Ok, let's analyze your claims:
This is a paper about "Anatomy of a proficient enzyme: The structure of orotidine 5‘-monophosphate decarboxylase in the presence and absence of a potential transition state analog" written in 1998.
In a nutshell the reaction acceleration brought about by this enzyme is vital in protein synthesis for the assembly of DNA and RNA. Without this enzyme to speed up the reaction time it would take in excess of 75 MILLION YEARS for a single molecule of DNA or RNA to synthesise.
This is a strawman argument. The author's of this paper and specialists in the field of the synthesis of RNA/DNA do not state that this system occurred lock-stock-and-barrel "as is" but rather these reactionary pathways along with the organic material developed together growing more and more complex with more and more reactionary sidepaths and loops through the billions of years that life evolved on the Earth. Yes, this is still a hypothesis since there are several explanations stating exactly how this could have happened, as spelled out in the RNA world and other similar suggested scientific hypotheses.
However, it is a leap of faith to state that there is no way in which these enzymes and there reactionary pathways themselves could have evolved into more complex biochemical systems. Why not? What is stopping the chemical reactions from increasing the complexity of these enzymes such as Orotidine 5'-phosphate decarboxylase and others. If we use your logic than atom's shouldn't form by the attraction of electrons to atomic nucleasus or molecules form by the chmeical reactions between atoms. Why is it so difficult to understand how simple organic molecules can combine and evolve into larger more intricate biomolecular systems such as protiens and self-replicating molecules such as RNA and DNA?
It really makes you wonder how any form of life was able to pass on to the next generation it's DNA blueprint before this very complex enzyme came into existence, which itself is synthesised through complex chemical instructions that are themselves written on the DNA. Another chicken and the egg problem for evolutionists.
Again this is an example of your "God of the Gaps" in which because we have yet to fully explain and verify the abiogenesis of life and certain chemical reactions of organic compounds, we must then resort to some unknown supernatural factor now ambiguously labled as "intelligent design".
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
BTW, I am not skirting your argument here, but will have to do some more background research in this issue and get back with you on your claims that the "irreducible complexity" of these two enzymes are legitement evidence which substantiate ID.
I have some basic undergrad biology/chemistry education as well as some self-education in biology and do understand the basics of biochemistry but will have to do some self-education on these two specific enzymes and there synthesis pathways.
Thanks for your patience.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Your post is too long for me to respond to all of it whole-stock (the laptop I am working on dies every 2-3 hrs even when pluged in and am waiting on shipment of a new one) but here there are a few things I would like to comment on:
Nano writes:
The time needed for essential chemical reactions to occur within the cell is far too great without the enzyme.
Yes, true with cellular organisms that exist today (and probably the last billion years). I am still uncertain whether this enzyme is necessary for all types of synthesis of DNA/RNA or just de novo type synthesis, I am still researching this. Perhaps a microbiology or similarly related researcher can help us out on this (I will continue to research this through this weekend).
However, how do we know that this enzymic reactionary pathway did not evolve from simpler type reactions along with the evolution of DNA based life from RNA and even simpler self-replication organic molecular based life? I don't see anything preventing this? Do you?
Nano writes:
Take just one of many examples of this, the synthesis of uridine 59-phosphate and uridine 5‘-phosphate that is an essential precursor needed in the cells construction of DNA and RNA molecules. The point here is that without DNA or RNA, there can be no cell replication of heritable characteristics, which by definition precludes natural selection from occurring at all.
True, present day organisms rely on cellular reproduction by means of DNA/RNA replication however the more simple viruses can replicate with the help of host cells by means of just a strand of RNA and a protein coat. So we have present day examples of how rather simple organic molecules can self-replicate. In addition scientists have been able to replicate RNA that can on its own self-replicate ad infinitim without any help from other enzymes or cellular components and which give an insight of how complex DNA based life could later evolve as shown here:
The only result is that the hypothetical organism dies with no offspring if it could even be described as being alive and able to function without the ability to synthesize DNA or RNA. Life ends. No possible path for evolution.
I disagree, why could early life not have been RNA based and later developed into the more complex DNA based life we see today? This is just another attempt for IDers (like Behe) to have "irreducible complexity" bought off by the scientific community. Just like at Dover, scientists have explained that natural selection allows less complex intermediate forms of cellular structures and processes i.e. RNA and other simple enzymes which themselves have vital and profitable functions in themselves and which are able to evolve into more complex cellular structures and processes i.e. DNA, as natural selection allows.
To be continued
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
Obviously, there is no absolute way to prove or disprove anything that supposedly happened in the distant past, because there is no way of testing physical specimens that we don't possess.
Nothing in science is 100% "proven", whatever "proven" really means. Science is not religion with its concrete yet unverifiable absolutes. What science does cover are possible and plausible explanations of how natural phenomena such as life can occur.
Nano writes:
There is however no particularly compelling reason that suggests that the supposed first forms of life as seen in the fossil record and determined to be so by evolutionary scientists, should be interpreted as possessing any characteristics that would lead one to the conclusion that the DNA/RNA is substantially different from that found in present day cells.
Sure there is. Is the DNA sequence the same in a human as it is in a chimpanzee much less bacteria? There is a wide range of complexity and function of these organic molecules. The DNA in modern day bacteria are usually short circular sequences as opposed to the longer and linear strands found in eukaryotic cells. As one looks at the differences in the genomes of complex organisms such as humans to simpler genomes such as bacteria once can see somewhat of a progression of complexity of the genome. This is not a straightforward analogy though since bacteria have evolved lock step with the more complex eukaryotic organisms and thus there genomes have become more robust and complex as well.
Also your claim that there is no reason to believe that earlier life used different processes for building DNA/RNA, I believe is flawed. Here is an article which states that the synthesis process for one of the four nucleotides of DNA is different in bacteria and virus than it is in the rest of living organisms. In fact it outlines the process of synthesizing the intermediate structure deoxy-uridine monophosphate (mentioned in the article you posted earlier) using a much simpler transfer of a proton and two electrons (hydride) versus involving an amino acid via way of the TS enzyme used in more complex life. As shown here:
Unfortunately, you are so adamant about proving intelligent design correct that you have not done your background research to see if the ID articles you are quoting from are even keeping up with the latest scientific research much less correct in any degree. Keep trying though
Like Percy mentioned earlier, It would be nice to have conclusive evidence exactly how life originated and evolved to more complex DNA based life but science only has to determine if there are possible ways in which cellular life (and all of its component parts) could have originated to nullify ID's claim that there are certain parts of cellular life that are "irreducibility complex" and thus that an intelligent designer is necessary.
To be continued...
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
™ Version 4.2
