You made a claim about what microbiologist have said. When challenged that this is NOT what microbiologists say, you provide a list of microbiologists who do make that claim......except many of the names you provide are not microbiologists!
Well I did name at least one "off the top of my head."
Douglas Axe- is the director of Biologic Institute. His research uses both experiments and computer simulations to examine the functional and structural constraints on the evolution of proteins and protein systems. After a Caltech PhD he held postdoctoral and research scientist positions at the University of Cambridge, the Cambridge Medical Research Council Centre, and the Babraham Institute in Cambridge. His work has been reviewed in Nature and featured in a number of books, magazines and newspaper articles, including Life’s Solution by Simon Conway Morris,
Ann Gauger- is a senior research scientist at Biologic Institute. Her work uses molecular genetics and genomic engineering to study the origin, organization and operation of metabolic pathways. She received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis.
Matti Leisola- is Professor of Bioprocess Technology of Aalto University. His habilitation in biotechnology was completed at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH). The research on enzyme engineering and function and other aspects of biotechnology done under his direction has led to over 130 peer-reviewed scientific papers and about 3000 citations in the scientific literature.
Will Little- is a research scientist and software developer currently working on the Stylus project. Will holds a BSE in Interdisciplinary Engineering and an MS in Bioengineering from the University of Washington. He earned a PhD from the ETH (Zürich) for his work on biomaterials and mechanotransduction.
Philip Lu- is a biotechnologist specializing in protein purification and process column chromatography applications. He received his BS in microbiology from the University of Washington. He has been involved in a wide range of research and development projects, including studies of glycoprotein G from the Herpes Simplex II virus and bringing the cytokine product “Leukine” from development to production for Immunex.
Jonathan Wells- is a cell and developmental biologist with a PhD in Molecular and Cell Biology from UC Berkeley. His current research includes experimental testing of a hypothesis about centriole function with implications for cancer, and theoretical work on the role of endogenous electric fields in establishing spacial coordinate systems to control morphogenesis in animal embryos. His work has appeared in BioSystems, Development, and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Lisanne Winslow- is a professor of biology at Northwestern College. Her research focuses on the cellular biology of sea urchin immune cells. She received her BS, MS, and PhD from Rutgers University. She was recently awarded a Fulbright Scholarship to conduct research on the structure and function of sea urchin immune cells at the Misaki Marine Biological Station in Japan.
It's not apparent what is meant by "nothing" in this context. Does empty space qualify as nothing? Quantum mechanics postulates a seething foam of virtual particles continually popping into and out of existence, and has been indirectly verified with such experiments as the Casimir effect.
You might want to back read a little, we've already substantially discussed the Casimir effect on this thread. Please note my comments on it in message 161.
If, instead, "nothingness" is some state of affairs which cannot by definition be experienced, then the notion of no thing "coming from nothing" is inherently unfalsifiable.
This response kind of makes me think of two toddlers in a play-pen, and the one telling the other that because they don't have the ability to get out and see if fire breathing dragons exist, that his argument that they have no observable reason to believe they do... is invalid.
No thing has ever been observed in the act of being created from nothing. (Can be falsified by observing just one case of somebody creating something else out of nothing in violation of the conservation of mass-energy; conjuring tricks or Genesis 1:1 notwithstanding.)
Again this is neither the time nor the place to discuss the teachings of the Bible, but I will retort with the fact that the text doesn't say a word about "conjuring tricks." Again the text only says "that" He did, nothing about the "HOW" is mentioned. I'm only speculating, but perhaps an infinite, all powerful being, possesses infinite mass and energy within Him. But again this is all purely speculatory. We do not have to know everything about the "how" or the "why" just to detect the "who."
I doubt that the general concept of intelligent design would be in any way falsified by a successful detection of alien life; on the contrary, it could conceivably bolster it. All it would really falsify is your presumed arrogance that life on this one planet must be the Pinnacle of All Creation.
I usually try to say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. And I said nothing about the "concept of ID" being falsified by alien life. I said the notion that the Earth parameters are "specifically designed" to support life would be falsified. The existence of life elsewhere would also validate the claims that in a lot of ways the creationists are painting the bull's eye around the bullet whole. We would then need to re-evaluate our stand on some of these issues.
As far as being arrogant, I haven't said life here is the "pinnacle" of anything. I have only said that the parameters of Earth appear to be designed specifically to support life.
You're interpreting the lack of evidence of this other life as evidence that it can't exist.
No, your argument was that there is nothing special about the parameters of this universe and this planet, and that had it developed differently that life could have developed differently. I'm saying that at present we have no evidence to suggest other kinds of life is possible, so how can you base your argument in something there is not even any evidence for?
Just as we don't know if or how life might be based upon other chemistries and physics, neither do we know what element or elements might take the place of carbon were such life possible.
But what we do know is what would happen to all the forms of life that we HAVE observed so far, if the elements were not precisely as they are now. You can't base a scientific argument in what you "imagine" could happen. You have to base it on what you observe at present HAS happened.
The important point to take away is that you're drawing conclusions in an area of great ignorance, and the usual good advice is that of what one does not know one must remain silent.
Suppose 3rd century BC Hellenistic astronomers would have remained "silent" about their observations that led them to conclude the earth was a sphere? I mean they had no ability to actually physically observe that the earth was a sphere. But they did have observations that flew in the face of most conventional beliefs of the time that it was flat.
Right now, conventional thinking is that life is possible everywhere under a plethora of conditions. Yet observation so far reveals no such a thing.
Since you define nothing as the era "before" the existence of anything,
Now your just playing with words. My point of course is that there never was an "era before the existence of anything." Else that era would still exist.
It was an intelligently designed computer running an intelligently programmed algorithm. The algorithm began with a random set of wire arrangements. The algorithm determined which of that set functioned best then randomly combined those together to get a new set. This process repeated. Please show me at what point in that algorithm intelligence was a factor.
That would be at the point that that randomly arranged set of wires was used as for the purpose of an antenna. I own an old Ford Explorer that the hood spring is worn out on. The other day I wanted to check my oil. What did I do? I promptly walked my butt over to the nearby woods and found me a tree twig that had been randomly designed by an "algorithm" which fit perfectly as a prop to hold my hood up. At that moment that twig became intelligently designed as a hood prop.
If the assumption of an intelligent source is based on intent then intent must be established.
Don't twist my words. I said that things with an intended purpose, function, code, or pattern (specificity), are the product only of an intelligent source. I clearly defined how such specificity is commonly detected in science.
The rest of your comments I seem to have discussed substantially in other replies.
It's not at all clear what you mean by "specificity". Both unintelligent and intelligent organisms communicate.
Are you able to give an example of an unintelligent organism "creating" communication code? Or do they communicate through pre-programmed responses? And if the later is the case, where did that program originate? With a combination lock, when the correct combination is entered into the lock it produces a specific function response. In a very real sense a communication has occurred. In this case the lock does not require intelligence to understand the information, but an observer can still recognize the design by his independent understanding of how locks function. The key to recognizing specificity is the independent patter already existing within the observer or the function of the object.
Archaeologists infer intelligent design by looking for specific design clues which are already independently present in them and they in turn recognize in the object.
The automated chemical codes of unintelligent organisms like ants and bacteria are far more similar to D.N.A than what we and the dolphins do.
I'm so glad you referred to it as automated. That makes my point. Where did the programming originate. We have zero observation that supports the notion that such automation program can form by unguided processes. All observation is that such specificity requires an original intelligent source.
Archaelogists make a combination of observations to determine if something is an artifact. They do not have a formula that they can apply universally. Their methods are useless to SETI, and SETI's methods are useless to them. So there is no universal formula for you to apply to something else completely different, like chemical self-replicators.
I didn't say it was written down in their little journals as a "formula." The point though is that it does work out as a formula nonetheless. They are looking for intelligence in different things and using different methods... this is true. But it all boils down to specificity like it or not.
What does a macro-molecule have in common with a with a broken clay pot?
The observer recognizes the predetermined pattern or function independently.
Here I think I was confusing Jbr with SavageD, and so overestimating the degree to which Jbr has been exposed to reality. My impatience with him was therefore not entirely warranted, and I apologize if I was unnecessarily testy.
Thank you. This means a lot. It really does. I appreciate you saying so.
Will you at least accept that your "infinitely exists" isn't observationally supported?
Since "infinite" in this case is a reference in time, and we are finite, we obviously have no ability to directly observe if something is infinite or not. However we can logically conclude something infinite exists based on the fact that something finite exists now. That's because observationally we have only observed finite things come from something else. And therefore there can not logically have ever been a time when there was nothing. That means that something has always existed. The term for something that has always existed is "infinite."
So the configuration of the wires didn't become intelligently designed until it received a signal?
Is that what you think, "the point that that randomly arranged set of wires was used as for the purpose of an antenna," means? Or does it mean, "the point that that randomly arranged set of wires WAS USED FOR THE PURPOSE of an antenna?"
You didn't like my hood prop analogy? Let's try this one.
We know that trees often grow branches. These branches often extent out fairly far and then fork off. When I go camping I like to roast marshmallows. My two kids also happen to like to eat roasted marshmallows when we go camping. Hence I find myself in need of a long stick that branches off into a three prong fork configuration. When I find a small tree branch that forks off into three smaller branches I know I have found what I "intend" to use. After cutting it and sharpening the three points it becomes the perfect tool for the job. Did it grow with this intent? No of course not. I simply took advantage of its natural growth to use for my marshmallow roasting stick.
Likewise your wire configuration happens to be the perfect tool for its job as an antenna. With a little clip here and a little soldering there (onto an intelligently designed threaded coaxial) your naturally formed wires are turned into an intelligently designed antenna. I can't really explain it any plainer than that. I realize that was your favorite argument against ID. But it's been busted. Time to move on.
OK, then you've failed to establish that life, the universe or the Earth have specificity because intent has not been established.
(Sigh) Look "intent" is not established it is DETECTED!!! I have however ESTABLISHED that one of the best ways to "detect" intent is to look for specificity. Furthermore I have very well defined what I mean by specificity and given several real life scenarios in which real scientists use-- looking for specificity (rather that is the actual word they call it or not) to detect intelligence.
I have pointed out that many working biologists describe the code in DNA as being very specified. I have also pointed out that there is no observable evidence that we can look to in biology, that explains where this code (clearly recognized) in DNA, came from.
Therefore, devoid of any other observations, the most logical conclusion based on observation is that it came from an intelligent source.
...what you mean by "nothing" and what observations we have that entitle us to conclude that it produces nothing ?
The fact that we have never observed "nothing" ever. means the complimentary way of making that statement is to say, "we have only observed that something requires something else in order to be." BTW your comment about observing nothing produce nothing was quite hhhilllaaarioooouuus. I got sody pop up my nose on that one.
So if you are going to reject "something from nothing" on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed you should also reject the notion of infinite (in time) things on the basis that only the opposite has ever been observed.
The problem is we run into a logical stalemate. If we are going to assume based on observation that everything that has ever existed is finite because that is all we have ever observed, then how do we rationalize this mathematically? Finite things can not logically or mathematically also be infinite. Therefore we have no other choice but to conclude that there must exist something that we have yet to observe which can satisfy this logical dilemma.
At this particular junction in the problem we don't have to know what it is, we only have to understand that in order for finite matter and space to exist, it must be infinite in time.
If time is something (which surely it must be) then - By definition there can be no time when there was nothing.
Here is an interesting comment for you. Suppose "time" is not a "something" but merely a human measurement to measure change. To test this notion, consider what if right at this moment every thing in the universe just stopped changing. All protons and electrons, all planets and stars, if everything just became frozen in one position. If this were to happen, then would there still be time? I think if this were to happen we would say, "Time stopped." Therefore if time is merely a construct of human invention to measure change, then we can abstractly (from our point of view) say that there has always been time and always will be time. Of course if there were ever time in which absolutely nothing existed (to change) then practically speaking there would be no time. But that is not the point.
Time is a human invention... a tool if you will, invented to think abstractly. I can think about yesterday because of the "tool" we use called time. And with that same tool I can think about the minutes before there was a universe, even though perhaps there was nothing changing then. So then there is nothing illogical about humans using their tool called time to think about the moments before the universe began.
If you mean that intent is directly observed, then you have a problem.
No my friend, I meant exactly what I said: "intent" is not established it is DETECTED!!! If I use a "detector" to detect police radar, I have not "directly observed" the radar waves, I have detected them. We use a distinguishing quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose (specificity)... to spot intelligence. And the key to DETECTING specificity is looking for any event or object which exhibits a pattern that matches a "foreknown" pattern that was completely "interdependent" of the first. The observer must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. This is any pattern that produces a recognition response of a functional response. When an observer sees this, he has not observed intent, he has however detected the clues that we commonly look for to tell if something is specified.
And we do this every day. We see a bird's nest up in a tree and it instantly invokes a recognition response in us from a completely independent experience, and we know this bowl shaped clump of twigs were arranged that way for a specific purpose. To suggest that specificity is not detected this way turns us into a bunch of bumbling idiots who can't tell our asses from a hole in the ground. Perhaps you are comfortable with that description, but I am not.
Me: I have pointed out that many working biologists describe the code in DNA as being very specified.
You: You seem to miss the distinction between SHOWING and mere assertion. Merely claiming something does not make it true.
Wow... for real? Well since it seems to be far too difficult for you to go and back read before making accusations, I will help you out sir. In message 113 I actually "SHOWED" how several biologists refer to the code in DNA as being specified. In message 271 I actually "SHOWED" a list of several biologists who directly attribute this to an intelligent source. Thus contrary to your accusation that I am merely claiming and not "SHOWING"... you are wrong --again.