Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 274 of 327 (506433)
04-26-2009 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 271 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 7:55 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
NanoGecko writes:
Evolutionary propaganda often understates the difficulty of a naturalistic origin of life. Production of traces of ‘building blocks’ is commonly equated with proving that they could have built up the required complicated molecules under natural conditions. The instability of ‘building blocks’ in non-biotic environments is usually glossed over.
The RNA/DNA base cytosine is not produced in spark discharge experiments. The proposed prebiotic productions are chemically unrealistic because the alleged precursors are unlikely to be concentrated enough, and they would undergo side reactions with other organic compounds, or hydrolyse. Cytosine itself is too unstable to accumulate over alleged geological ‘deep time’, as its half life for deamination is 340 years at 25C.
No one disputes the existence of living organisms on earth, and that cells indeed are capable of using simple building blocks to generate the required complex biochemicals at the necessary time, location and concentration. The question is whether the massive co-ordination of the metabolic processes which perform such feats could have arisen without intelligent guidance and driven by only statistical and thermodynamic constraints.
Even if we granted that the ‘building blocks’ were available, it does not follow that they could actually build anything. For example, under plausible prebiotic conditions, the tendency is for biological macromolecules to break apart into the ‘building blocks’, not the other way round.8 Also, the ‘building blocks’ are likely to react in the wrong ways with other ‘building blocks’, for example, sugars and other carbonyl (>C=O) compounds react destructively with amino acids and other amino (—NH2) compounds, to form imines (>C=N), a common cause of browning in foods.
Furthermore, some of the building blocks are very unstable. A good example is ribose, which is obviously essential for RNA, and hence for the RNA-world hypothesis of the origin of life. A team including the famous evolutionary origin-of-life pioneer Stanley Miller, in PNAS, found that the half life (t) of ribose is only 44 years at pH 7.0 (neutral) and 0C. It’s even worse at high temperatures73 minutes at pH 7.0 and 100C.11 This is a major hurdle for hydrothermal theories of the origin of life. Miller, in another PNAS paper, has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100Cadenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days.
Most researchers avoid such hurdles with the following methodology: find a trace of compound X in a spark discharge experiment, claim ‘see, X can be produced under realistic primitive-earth conditions’. Then they obtain pure, homochiral, concentrated X from an industrial synthetic chemicals company, react it to form traces of the more complex compound Y. Typically, the process is repeated to form traces of Z from purified Y, and so on. In short, the evolutionists’ simulations have an unacceptable level of intelligent interference.
Found here, verbatim: http://creation.com/origin-of-life-instability-of-building-blocks written by Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International (CMI), formerly part of Answers in Genesis (AiG), a non-profit Christian Apologetics ministry specializing in Young-Earth creationism (as per Wikipedia).
You know it is dishonest to verbatim pass off other people's work as your own (unless of course you are Sarfati). This reveals your lack of credibility and honesty. And yes, I cite any articles or websites I refer back to (and no, I don't verbatim copy and past blocks of text into my post as if they are my own words). In academics this is called plagerism and is dealt with by a kick boot out the academic door (and often in college by expulsion). CITE YOUR SOURCES.
If you can't even put the information you are getting from these cites into your own words instead of pasting them into your posts as your own words, why should we waste our time with you explaining why these arguments are errant?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 7:55 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 9:26 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 276 of 327 (506435)
04-26-2009 9:00 AM


Sorry thought this was appropiate here and would bring a little levity to this debate:
Enjoy
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : Citation: Original cartoon 2000, J. Blanchard found @ http://www.nmsr.org/Blanch4.gif

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

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 279 of 327 (506442)
04-26-2009 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by NanoGecko
04-26-2009 9:26 AM


Re: common knowledge VS common igorance
Nano writes:
Fair call, it was not however my intention to pass this off as my own work, it was just an oversight, my error.
And before you imply otherwise, no I haven't made this type of oversight before. I have just checked my posts, in all other cases I have quoted my reference source
Thanks for your honesty. Moving on, I will take a look at Dr. Sarfati evidence and get back to you in the next day or two on it. I have to take my daughter to Sunday School and will look at it this afternoon. Take care.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by NanoGecko, posted 04-26-2009 9:26 AM NanoGecko has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 284 of 327 (506458)
04-26-2009 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Bio-molecularTony
04-26-2009 11:56 AM


Re: Intellectual Supremacy Footprint
Tony writes:
Why? The decay rate of building materials in space is faster then on earth and 15 years is the useful life of most things built by man for space. Long before your half done the star ship the first half is useless and needs replacing already. Even if you cheated and did finish the star ship, it will never last the 22 million years of flight - if you could move at the speed of light.p
???????????????? WTF, since when is the decay rate of material in space greater than that of Earth? Is space not a near vacuum? What is causing this material to decay? The only decay we could think about in space is that of nanoscopic amounts of radioactive isotopes (except the radioactive source of propulsion itself which is usually lead sheilded), the occasional bombardment by cosmic radiation and the decay of protons and neutrons themselves (longer than the age of the universe itself). While on Earth, material is whethered and corroded by the air in the atmosphere as well as biological life itself.
Tony, can you back up anything you say or should I just call you speak-out-of-your-ass Tony.
BTW, Nano, I am still doing some background research, sorry bare with me.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 11:56 AM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 6:51 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 299 of 327 (506536)
04-27-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by Bio-molecularTony
04-26-2009 11:45 PM


Re: Intellectual Supremacy Footprint
So are you suggesting Tony, that each and every single chemical process: photosynthesis, chemical synthesis, biodegradation, catalyst, etc. requires God's divine hand to "stir the pot", so to speak, to make them occur? In other words, nothing could occur on its own without a divine Prime mover/"unmoved mover"/First Cause/etc?
If so then your argument is truly 100% supernatural (philosophical) and 0% natural (scientific) in nature. Again, the natural (science) cannot explain the supernatural (capricious actions by a divine entity). And you cannot provide natural evidence for supernatural causes. It is oxymoronic to say otherwise.
Go spread your nonsense in a philosophic forum not in a science forum asking for evidence.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-26-2009 11:45 PM Bio-molecularTony has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-28-2009 5:04 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 307 of 327 (506626)
04-28-2009 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 9:09 PM


Re: The Central Point
I thought that was adequately explained. The term goal infers directed intent, which is I would have thought, incompatible with Darwinian Evolution,(D.E.) wouldn't you agree. Rather the fact that D.E. is used to account for the existence of "complex" organisms such as man demands that the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.
Biological evolution is biological evolution not "Darwinian Evolution". We have move long passed and expounded on Darwin's original premise as stated in the "On the Origin of Species". And no, evolution has no end goal, complexity or otherwise. Do we not still have viruses and bacteria on this planet? Are they not less complex than eukaryotaic organisms such as humans? Are bacteria adn viruses not still evolving? Case in point: the strain of pig flu which has just mutated to transfer not only from pig to pig and pig to human but now human to human?
The only things that drive evolution is the accumulation of genetic mutations caused by various natural phenomena i.e. cosmic radiation and natural selection which weeds out mutations which are destructive and harm the species. And mutations that are neutral or beneficial stay in the gene pool, and harmful ones decrease the survivability of that strain of organism. It doesn't matter if out of 1000 mutations only 1 is benefical and the rest are harmful (actually most mutations in higher organisms are benign) that 1 beneficial mutation can potentially give that organism increased survival capability over the one's with harmful mutations and the ones with harmful mutations can potentially cease as a viable strain of that organism (yes, I know that is not exactly how it works but I am trying to simplify this for the creationists/IDers). Throw random genetic drift and gene flow/migration into the picture and that's biological evolution in a nutshell. To say otherwise is to reveal your ignorance in the subject.
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 message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 9:09 PM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 308 of 327 (506629)
04-28-2009 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Bio-molecularTony
04-28-2009 5:04 AM


Re: Get off the fence and stand up like a real ...
Tony writes:
Me writes:
So are you suggesting Tony, that each and every single chemical process: photosynthesis, chemical synthesis, biodegradation, catalyst, etc. requires God's divine hand to "stir the pot", so to speak, to make them occur? In other words, nothing could occur on its own without a divine Prime mover/"unmoved mover"/First Cause/etc?
As far as I can tell it is not really needed. Religious thought might think so but for now we find none, and "none needed" may turn out to be true. I leave it hanging in the air, it could go either any but there is not "physical" evidence of this yet.
So you admit there is no evidence for the supernatural cause of all natural phenomena. That is a start.
Tony writes:
So the "automation" of this superior form of technology is all we see and seems to be the only Cause for all it's functions.
I am not even sure what this means???
That being the case what does that tell you about "life". You tell me, if there is no "black magic" hiding from our eyes making life work, as you also say, then what does that tell you about life.
It tells me that you are off your rocker and don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Is it not just the highly complex design that is the only source for these functions?
So are viruses highly complex designs? How about amino acids? Bacteria? How about simple organic molecules? How about atoms? Protons, are they highly complex? How about black holes? Singularity?
Photons are they highly complex? This idea of irreducible complexity which demands an intelligent designer is in your head. Complexity is a human derived term and thus subjective in nature. What you may think is complex, I may not. Complexity, like the term beauty, must have a comparison i.e. plant cells are more complex (have more components/parts/etc) than do bacteria cells.
And then does that not lead you to conclude there is a raw and simple "mechanical" foundation for all "life’s" fundamental basic inner wokings.
Yes, it is called inorganic and organic molecules i.e. amino acids, lipids, water, etc.
You said it - there is no supernatural, so now you have to "sleep in the bed you yourself made".
Actually, that is not what I said. I said the natural cannot explain the supernatural.
Tony writes:
By your own theory and words I call you a machine that thinks it is alive.
Sure Sparticus what ever you say
Tony writes:
You in effect are the ones saying it, not the religious groups.
Saying what? That I am a biological machine? Labels make not an intelligent scientific theory, evidence does. BTW, I have no clue how you derived this from what I stated, please show how? What am I talking to a 12 year old?
Tony writes:
So is man intelligently complex or not.
Complex in comparison to what? And WTF is "intelligently complex"? One thing creationist/ID is good at, besides obfuscation, is making up BS pseudoscientific terms.
Tony writes:
Is man a mechanically automated machine or not.
The loose interpretation you are applying to the term "machine" would mean everything in the universe is a machine. However, this is not how science defines the term machine so no man is not a mechanically automated machine.
Are we super-natural or super-automated-design? Get off the fence and stand up like a real "man/machine".
Neither. BTW, I have gotten off the fence a long time ago. I was challenging you to provide scientific evidence for your claims which you have yet to do.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-28-2009 5:04 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 317 of 327 (506701)
04-28-2009 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: The Central Point
Nano writes:
Me writes:
Do we not still have viruses and bacteria on this planet?
I was never suggesting that we don't have viruses and bacteria on this planet.
You missed my point. My point was that we have varying degrees of complexity in biological life that still exists today. So how can you say that the direction of evolution is to produce complexity when if that were true we should only have only complex life on Earth not varying degrees of complexity. In other words there is no end game for evolution.
Tony writes:
Me writes:
Are they not less complex than eukaryotaic organisms such as humans? Are bacteria adn viruses not still evolving?
Relatavistic comparisons between various species of organisms is not evidence for an increase in complexity; the increase is assumed in accordance with evolutionary beliefs.
Again you missed my point. You are the one building the strawman argument requiring evolution to increase in complexity not me. Case in point:
Neno writes:
Rather the fact that D.E. is used to account for the existence of "complex" organisms such as man demands that the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.
My point is that evolution doesn't require anything but to survive. If an organism has to evolve to a simpler life form i.e. viruses, etc to survive, so be it. And vice versa. Complexity and simplicity is just a byproduct of survivability. There is no direction, no goal, no end game.
Nano writes:
It is important that you make the distinction between the real process of natural selection and the assumed process of evolution.
Natural selection is one of the natural mechanisms which makes biological evolution possible. Natural selection is part of evolution. You can't have one without the other.
Nano writes:
I say Dawinian evolution so that it is understood that I am talking about the assumed process by which the diversity of all life on this planet came about over whatever length of time has been agreed upon as necessary for it to happen, presently measured in billions of years.
That is the definition of biological evolution. There is no Darwinian evolution in the context you are talking about. When scientists use the term Darwinian evolution it is in a historical context of talking about the mechanisms of natural selection before the science of genetics was discovered. That's it. You are misconstruing this term to make it fit your own idea of what biological evolution is. Get over it.
Nano writes:
I do not say Darwinian Evolution to confound, trick or apply any devious agenda to the debate but rather to make it clear that I mean the mechanism by which the diversity of all species has come about.
No, I think you are sincere in your beliefs however ignorant and wrong they are.
Nano writes:
Myself writes:
Case in point: the strain of pig flu which has just mutated to transfer not only from pig to pig and pig to human but now human to human?
Mutation is not in question, neither is it doubted that mutation can bring about benefits to an organism such as the swine influenza virus recently in the news, what is likely is that the mutation brought about no new information to the virus.
This is an old ID argument that hold no water but for sake of entertainment, can you define this information please before we discuss whether this so called "information" can increase or decrease? I just want to see what your take on the definition of "information" here is in this context.
Nano writes:
But it's likely that the virus lost information that previously expressed as a useful function for example for the virus.
And what form would this information be in? Specifically.
And how do you know the virus lost "information previously expressed as a useful function"? How do you know this? We presume something doesn't exist over something existing, where there is a lack of evidence for the existence of this "something". Am I not right in this premise i.e. Occam's Razor. So in this case you need to provide evidence that the virus lost this previously existing "information" (whatever that may be).
Nano writes:
The up side is that the mutation also provided the ability for it to cross species barriers, an advantage.
Beneficial for the virus (increase in # of host=increased survivability). Downside for the human species (new pathogen to deal with).
Nano writes:
No new information though.
Again you need to define WHAT this information is and then how do you know new information was not created.
Nano writes:
To illustrate further, hypothetically, if say down the track humans became extinct, then the recently acquired benefit of the virus would no longer be a benefit and the previously mentioned expression for the original useful function has also gone forever.
I don't get it? Why is the virus a benefit to the human species???
Nano writes:
If humans don't become extinct, then this naturally selected for advantage remains, but whatever way you look at it,
I haven't seen one shred of evidence to indicate that natural selection from mutation of this kind is going to build the diverse range of species that we see around us.
Huh? The only natural selection that could occur in this situation would be if the human species built up an immunity to this virus (though mutations pre-existing in the genome which increase survivability or mutations which are the result of someone being inflicted with the virus who survives in which the DNA of the virus implants itself in the gametes of that individual) and passed it down to there progeny. If this virus was deadly enough it could potentially kill off humans that lack this particular genetic trait which increases the survivability against this viral endimic.
Nano writes:
It is always going to be a type of influenza virus, it may alter to some degree, it may gain genetic advantage from mutations, but it is never going to evolve into a bacteria like Eschericia coliform for example or a protozoan no matter how many Billions of years you wish to wait, and that's the point. The complexity is heading in the wrong direction.
Strawman argument. Virus will not mutate into bacteria. No one ever suggested that they would. Even current abiogenesis hypothesis do not include viruses into the path of abiogenesis to higher complexity organisms. Virus are just one of the many dead end branches off the life tree (not to say that they will not indefinately survive as a "species" [viruses are closer in scale to protiens and dna than they are to bacteria and thus are often not included into the category of living organisms], just that there is to big of a jump in evolution from viruses to bacteria).
Again no specific direction to evolution. Whichever one survives, simple and complex, wins. Which is why we still have virus and bacteria around that are more simple (# of cellular components, # of genes, etc) than the more complex multicellular eukaryota organisms.

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 message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM NanoGecko 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