A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence

Hmmm, I think you are not quite appreciating the type of life that is hypothesised to be possibly RNA based. It is certainly not the type to be leaving fossils. We are talking about primative cells. Watch this video presentation on one hypothetical - but extremely plausible - idea of what was behind abiogenesis:The problem with your argument is this:You: it couldn't possibly happen naturally, so it must be a god
Us: yes, it could possibly happen naturally - here is one possible way
You: BUT you have no proof - you do not know that it happened that way
Us: quite so, we don't - but your argument that it *couldn't* happen naturally has been all but falsified. It *could* possibly happen naturally, we have shown a possible way, and thus your argument that it MUST be a god is nonsense. Note that this is not saying that it WASN'T a god...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

And of course it is - our own DNA/RNA system is that trace And given when the transition is hypothesised, you are talking of the order of BILLIONS of years between that period and the first hard-body-part fossils. The advantages of the DNA world would have out-competed the RNA-world life millions of times over in that time.But if you think that is unreasonable, lay out your logic please... yes, because that is the level that us scientists discuss these things I can never get over the extreme ignorance displayed by creationists regarding how science and scientists operate. Yep, we just sit around and say - hmmm, not sure how that works, but it might be this. Everyone agreed? Yep? Ok, next problem... You need to get off the Discovery channel and talk to some real scientists. You're looking rather foolish here at EvC where many of us are scientists. Sadly, I have nothing to do with biology - I'm merely a mathematician/physicist, but even I can fumble my way through this abiogenetic study without making such an arse of myself.Much as I hate Wiki, here's the closing paragraph of the RNA World article:

quote:

---

In 2001, the RNA world hypothesis was given a major boost with the deciphering of the 3-dimensional structure of the ribosome, which revealed the key catalytic sites of ribosomes to be composed of RNA and for the proteins to hold no major structural role, and be of peripheral functional importance. Specifically, the formation of the peptide bond, the reaction that binds amino acids together into proteins, is now known to be catalyzed by an adenine residue in the rRNA: the ribosome is a ribozyme. This finding suggests that RNA molecules were most likely capable of generating the first proteins. Other interesting discoveries demonstrating a role for RNA beyond a simple message or transfer molecule include the importance of small nuclear ribonucleoproteins (SnRNPs) in the processing of pre-mRNA and RNA editing and reverse transcription from RNA in Eukaryotes in the maintenance of telomeres in the telomerase reaction.

---

Yep, really reads at the level of "the fundamental laws of chemistry provide this energy" is you in a nutshell. Not looking so dead, is it?Now, regarding CDK007: Please list them Yes, becasue that is definitely of the level of details and explanation displayed in the video Please justify your comment What circular reasoning And here you miss the point completely. What are the correct "amino acids"? And if I'm not mistaken, what we saw in the video was life, and so I have to ask, which proteins exactly are required for life? Are you really so naive to think that we expect modern cells in all of their complexity to leap into existence the best part of four billion years ago? Again, you need to let go of your pre-school-level ideas of how scientists think and operate. Err, I think we saw in the video how we can get self-replicating organisms without any proteins and without any "information" being "aquired". And then we saw how random protein production coupled with selection could improve the process. And that is all we need. Sorry, designer simply not required - not at this stage at any rate. But I'm sure you'll find something else for him to do. Given the level of scientific knowledge you have demonstrated here, I would say that is one in the bag for CDK007.

do you have any comprehension of how many stars there are in just the Observable Universe alone? And given how many planets we have now discovered, do you have any appreciation for just how many planets that implies? Everything we see around us HAS to be compatible with life for reasons so damn obvious that we only give it a name (the Weak Anthropic Principle) because of the existence of people like you Not only are we not in the slightest bit surprised at the suitablility of Earth and the Solar System for life; given the numbers involved, we fully expect to find countless similar systems throughout the Universe. Even if there was only one such system in each galaxy, so say one for each 100 billion stars, that's still one hundred billion systems in the Observable Universe alone.Sorry, but the nature of the Universe itself means that there is no evidence for design in looking at the Earth and our Solar System, other than the usual "evidence" from ignorance.

I'm sorry? Wrong "direction"? What "direction" is there in Darwinian Eviolution other than local fitting to the local environment? You surely can't be arguing that "complexity" is some sort of "goal" for evolution, can you? I think you need to learn a bit about evolution before you sound so sure of yourself and your quotations...

My pleasure Completely wrong. We have dated the earliest life to nearly 4 billion years old. The earliest hard-body-part fossils are of the order of half a billion years old. The billions of years is not assumed because it is necessary - it is simply hard geological data. I have no a priori commitment to anything - not since finally shrugging off twenty-plus years of being a born-again Christian - when I observe the geological record, I see simpler life over-layed by more complex life. Spotted any rabbits in the pre-Cambrian recently? So as I said, what circular reasoning? Unlike you, I don't go around implying that scientists don't have a fucking clue. As a scientist, I sort of get annoyed by that... I'm sorry, what "fundemental laws of chemistry" and what "cellular energy"? What are you talking about? At the level of these proto-cells, we're a long long way from ATP. Please spell out clearly your objections, because I don't speak layman-ease.And then you try to slip in Sarfati's crap, as if I wouldn't recognise his idiocy. He may be from your neck of the woods, but his bullshit has spread far and wide. We have possible and plausible pathways to abiogenesis. Every prior creationist objection to science that has been raised has been soundly demolished. Do you really think that there is any mileage in continuing to try to say "this just isn't possible". Didn't you start to take the hint when we sussed out thunder and lightning? How many thousand gaps do we have to close before you finally realise that trying to shoe-horn your god into those gaps is fruitless. Do you really think that one day, a gap will be found, and you will say "Aha! I knew God must have been in there somewhere" Did faith simply fall out of fashion somewhere down the line?Is your god so crap that he cannot create a Universe in which life can spontaneously arise? Is his creation so pathetic that he has to keep putting his hand in to make it actually do anything? Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

My first research papers were written on the Anthropic Principle (not anthropomorphic, you muppet) - guess how much I care about whether you're impressed or not As I said, the Weak Anthropic Principle does not need to be trotted out except for those too ignorant to understand the bleedin' obvious. I have billions upon billions of trials and you expect me to be suprised when one of those trials results in millions of complex factors coming together... you need to add statistics to your ever growing list of "stuff I ought to know a bit about before I make an idiot of myself again"As I first said to you - you are trying to claim all this evidence for "design", and all we have to do is show plausible natural means to explain your "design" and your evidence crumbles to nothing. It doesn't mean it wasn't designed, it just means that you have no evidence. Which just leaves you with faith, which is how it should be. I would have thought you would know that...

Wrong Of course they are, except that they are not theoretical But surely you cannot be confusing a result of evolution with some supposed "goal" of evolution? I take it you can tell the difference? Sorry, but your example just reveals your ignorance of mutation. Let's look at some more realistic mutations on your string:"The information that saw there is gone because I just jumbled it up"
"The information that was there is because I just jumbled it up"
"The information is gone because that was there I just jumbled it up"
"The information that was there is information that was there is gone because I just jumbled it up"which of these is less complex than the original?

That there has been an increase in complexity is obvious. That such an increase is a "goal" or a "fundamental and logical principle" is complete nonsense, and your ignorance is revealed despite your squirming. No, I did not. You are merely seeing the result of a filter. That filter in evolution is natural selection. That filter will act on every single organism, and if the mutations were sufficient to make an essential function inoperative, or to add a seriously deleterious function, that mutation will be removed from the gene pool probably before the creature is even born. Only those mutations that are not immediately life-threatening have any chance of continuing. The only way a gene will be reduced to nonsensical mush, such as in your example which requries a great many generations based on typical mutation rates, is where such a gene has absolutely no relevance to these creatures in their particular environment at that time. Mutations do not add information. Mutations plus natural selection add information. Where does the information come from? The environment. Is this really so hard?Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.