Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
22 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 18 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,209 Year: 22,245/19,786 Month: 808/1,834 Week: 308/500 Day: 7/64 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Foundations of ID
Modulous
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 166 of 213 (207072)
05-11-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:43 AM


Re: the point
Ahhh....but I did not say how quickly they 'poofed,' now did I. But Darwinism does propose a 'poof' here and there.

My apologies but I thought when you said

quote:

Elephants magically 'poof' out of amoebas

You meant that Elephants come out of amoebas. And when you said

quote:

pakicetus carves his legs into flippers

you were referring to an individual rather than a population. The usage of the singular noun and the personal pronoun will do that.

quote:

reptiloid therapsids supernaturally shove their jaw-bones up into their ears and shoot etherally into mammals.

And I thought that the use of the word supernaturally here might imply it was not proposed to occur naturally.

I see how I got the wrong end of the stick now. Well, these little 'poofs' you are talking about...do you mean random mutation. You could just say random mutation rather than trying to make the argument look absurd with 'magic' and 'poof' and self carving animals, and 'supernatural' and 'etheral'. Why not just say random mutation, because that is what it is. In fact, if you want to short hand it, just say RM/NS we'll know what you mean.

This message has been edited by Modulous, 05-11-2005 10:54 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:43 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 446 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 167 of 213 (207074)
05-11-2005 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 10:23 AM


You are just going to have to start naming these conditions. I'm afraid your insistence there ARE conditions is not a very strong argument. What are they?

Nu-uh. You propose that there is no condition possible where this would occur. That would mean you have explored every single possible environment and how it operates. Have you done this? Or are you making an absolute statement based on incomplete information? Is this scientific?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 10:23 AM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 1:01 PM Modulous has responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2437 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 168 of 213 (207078)
05-11-2005 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-11-2005 9:40 AM


Jerry writes:

What environment could possible cause homochiral proteins to form our of a racemic mixture of amino acids against the laws of chemistry?

I doubt that any could cause it to happen "against the laws of chemistry" but there certainly seem to be a few which might cause it to happen.

For instance the adsorption of one particular isomeric form of amino acids by minerals. In this case different faces show selectivity for different enantiomers.

Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality.
Hazen RM, Filley TR, Goodfriend GA.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 May 8;98(10):5487-90.

The emergence of biochemical homochirality was a key step in the origin of life, yet prebiotic mechanisms for chiral separation are not well constrained. Here we demonstrate a geochemically plausible scenario for chiral separation of amino acids by adsorption on mineral surfaces. Crystals of the common rock-forming mineral calcite (CaCO3), when immersed in a racemic aspartic acid solution, display significant adsorption and chiral selectivity of D- and L-enantiomers on pairs of mirror-related crystal-growth surfaces. This selective adsorption is greater on crystals with terraced surface textures, which indicates that D- and L-aspartic acid concentrate along step-like linear growth features. Thus, selective adsorption of linear arrays of D- and L-amino acids on calcite, with subsequent condensation polymerization, represents a plausible geochemical mechanism for the production of homochiral polypeptides on the prebiotic Earth.

I added the emphasis in bold to certain salient portions of the abstract.

Alternatively it may be that your assumption of equilibrium is not neccessarily warranted.

Recycling Frank: Spontaneous emergence of homochirality in noncatalytic systems
Raphaël Plasson, Hugues Bersini and Auguste Commeyras
PNAS 2004 November 30, vol. 101, no. 48, pp.16733-16738

In this work, we introduce a prebiotically relevant protometabolic pattern corresponding to an engine of deracemization by using an external energy source. The spontaneous formation of a nonracemic mixture of chiral compounds can be observed in out-of-equilibrium systems via a symmetry-breaking phenomenon. This observation is possible thanks to chirally selective autocatalytic reactions (Frank's model) [Frank, F. C. (1953) Biochim. Biophys. Acta 11, 459–463]. We show that the use of a Frank-like model in a recycled system composed of reversible chemical reactions, rather than the classical irreversible system, allows for the emergence of a synergetic autoinduction from simple reactions, without any autocatalytic or even catalytic reaction. This model is described as a theoretical framework, based on the stereoselective reactivity of preexisting chiral monomeric building blocks (polymerization, epimerization, and depolymerization) maintained out of equilibrium by a continuous energy income, via an activation reaction. It permits the self-conversion of all monomeric subunits into a single chiral configuration. Real prebiotic systems of amino acid derivatives can be described on this basis. They are shown to be able to spontaneously reach a stable nonracemic state in a few centuries. In such systems, the presence of epimerization reactions is no more destructive, but in contrast is the central driving force of the unstabilization of the racemic state.

This paper describes stereoselective reactions such as the formation of N-carboxyanhydrides of amino acids, as part of the activation reaction, which favour the subsequent formation of homochiral peptides.

TTFN,

WK

This message has been edited by Wounded King, 05-11-2005 11:23 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 9:40 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

  
Ooook!
Member (Idle past 4157 days)
Posts: 340
From: London, UK
Joined: 09-29-2003


Message 169 of 213 (207079)
05-11-2005 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-08-2005 9:20 PM


Hello again,

The conclusions explain the fossil record because the fossil record is used to glean the conclusions. Phylogenies validate the fossil record because the fossil record extrapolates the phylogenies....

...What I think you're missing is that THE SAME PEOPLE DO ALL OF THIS.

Right let’s try and nip this one in the bud. My argument is not that molecular phylogenies extrapolate those made by other methods, I’m saying that they confirm them. You can predict common descent using physiological comparisons and then test that phylogenic tree using DNA sequences. If examining the physical features of various features of reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish and mammals suggests that they shared a common ancestor and then diverged from each other at different points in the past then you’d expect to see a similar phylogenic tree when you compared DNA sequences. Where’s the circular argument there?

If you’re worried about bias, then why not do the tests yourself, or point out why they are scientifically unsound? Oodles of sequences from different organisms have been published and the programs are widely available (along with the statistical assumptions used to make them), so why don’t IDists (or YECs for that matter) show that birds and man came from separate origins?

If you want to discuss this further then I’m sure there’s an old thread we can resurrect.

Fine. Feel free to use that review and others to bring an argument. As soon as you do, I will be happy to address it.

I posted these papers as a sort of aside. You requested papers discussing pre-Cambrian fossils; I’ve suggested a couple. They are (I think) freely accessible to anyone so if you have any questions about their content, I’ll be happy to discuss them with you (along with half the forum members I suspect).

Do what?

So much for POTM, eh? :) The correct text should have read:

In addition to this, you’ve still got to tackle the hurdle that all IDists fall at. If you are saying that ‘something’ designed life, then what did it do after that? Surely it would have to have created it? Or did it just carelessly leave the blueprints lying around for someone to pick up?

IOW creation and design are practically the same thing. By saying things like

quote:
I just look at the fossil record. There I see organisms coming into the record fully formed.

you are effectively advocating an unspecified number of creation events. Why are you so afraid of being labelled creationist?

OK, and.......? You didn't say anything here.

I don’t know how I confused you here. I’ll try and make it clearer:

  • You’ve failed to explain the clear progression seen in the fossil record – like a creationist

  • You’ve flat out denied common ancestry – a classical creationist stance

  • You’ve indicated that ‘micro’ changes are possible, and that ‘macro’ ones are not – straight out of the creationist handbook*

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it probably is a duck!
    What’s your take on the age of the earth? ;)

    But these points are just a bit of a diversion really – me going on a bit of a pet rant – so I’ll get back to your points on ID:

    They're not useless unless you can refute the logic behind them. Can you?

    Well, the logic is flawed if they bare no resemblance to the situation they are meant to represent. This is error is amplified if people then go on to argue from the analogy rather than use it as a tool. A mousetrap, for example, is used as an analogy of complicated (IC) protein complexes, and the implication always is “When was the last time you saw a mousetrap evolve?”

    When was the last time you saw a mousetrap made up of components which were all made up of the same basic material which could have a variety of properties (from structural stability to dynamic flexibility), and which look suspiciously like other things that are lying around the factory? Similarly, what intrinsic properties of a Cadillac mimic those of a sub-atomic particle? How can a computer reproduce itself?

    But if I were the designer I would do this the same way when designing organisms. Why come up with a helicopter design for bats when the wings I designed for birds do the job perfectly well? Why not similar legs in both horses and dogs? Why not homologous hox genes in several different organisms?

    I think I may have confused the thread a bit here, since it was me who brought this subject up. The important thing about the conservation of structures and the signalling events controlling them is the pattern of conservation. Tetrapod limbs are obviously modified fins, bird wings are modified reptile limbs, and bat wings are modified mammal limbs.

    If you want to use human designers as an example of how a good designer works then I would submit that good designers do re-use and modify old designs, but they also know when to go back the drawing board. If you are told to make something that flew, would you try and modify the front doors of a car into a pair of wings, or would you go and design an aeroplane? Evolution doesn’t have a choice; it has to work with what is already there.

    Of course, providing you provide the information I need and define your view of complexity.

    Wait a minute. It’s you that is making the claim that an increase in complexity cannot happen without a designer. Isn’t it up to you to define what complexity is for living things and then to test it? This is what I was saying: ID is missing a workable definition.

    Yes, that one is easy as with protein coding sequences, the biggest one will contain the most information, of course.

    Aha! A definition! So an increase in gene size absolutely requires a designer, right?

    But hang on, can’t duplication events, frame-shift mutations, and insertions all increase the size of genes? Where is the designer required?

    Many do not understand why we use that math. The reason we do is we are calculating the way things ARE not the way they got there. This math doesn't care what particular path a protein takes to get to be the way it is, all that matters is the way it is.

    But the whole point is that the route taken, and the rules applied do affect the calculations.

    Using your coin example: I’m not arguing that the probability of throwing twelve heads with twelve coins will change if I throw them three at a time or all at once – that would be silly. But what if I could throw all the coins, keep all of those that came up heads, and then throw the ones that came up tails again, keep the ones that came up heads….rinse and repeat until I had a row of heads in front of me? The odds would change wouldn’t they?

    The main thing that calculations like these don’t take into account is the idea that proteins are meant to evolve from other proteins. Proteins are naturally modular in structure, and you see the same basic structures being repeated again and again, across the board. How can you possibly factor this kind of thing into your equations? You need to know about the intermediates.

    For example, I’m sure you could plug this protein sequence:

    msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn
    into your equations and come up with a suitably ludicrous number. But what if you already had this one:
    msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn

    to play with?

    I’ve just noticed what a whopper of a post this is, so for now I’ll leave your predictions about designer DNA and genome degradation (they are probably more suited to your new thread anyway). But I would like to tackle one more thing:

    There are no uncomfortable questions, have you seen me shy from any?

    Well yes…when I’ve asked you to support this kind of statement:

    Just look at the fossil record to find the when and the quantum mechanics I presented to find the how.

    The fossil record of horse evolution is a wonderful chance for you to show everyone where the designer intervened. So, no assertions about pigs not giving birth to elephants or something similar. Where did the quantum stuff happen?

    * Similar to the Atheist/Agnostic Agenda you get handed once you start researching evolutionary biology ;).


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 120 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-08-2005 9:20 PM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 172 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:43 PM Ooook! has not yet responded

      
    Jerry Don Bauer
    Inactive Member


    Message 170 of 213 (207103)
    05-11-2005 1:01 PM
    Reply to: Message 167 by Modulous
    05-11-2005 10:53 AM


    quote:
    Did it have to happen in the way you propose? If it is so certainly against the laws of chemistry then all the chemists who are working on doing it are wasting their time? Perhaps they missed the relevant lecture at college and nobody has thought to tell them about it since. I just thought, I guess the people that fund this research weren't told that it was against the laws of chemistry. I think you should probably fire a few emails off and tell the universities about this gross lapse.

    What? I'm not aware of any chemists working on something they think goes against the laws of chemistry. They would be rather silly, wouldn't they, since they discovered those laws themselves?

    All I did was show how those reactions occur. If you guys disagree with me, then please show how I am wrong. I'm doing science and you guys are coming back with little more than supposition.

    quote:
    Are you sure this procedure is necessary? Do you know how life has to have formed? I think, once again, some emails should be fired off here. You could get a huge grant.

    Again, I'm just quoting science. I would have no idea how to rebut your email analogy.

    quote:
    Essentially what you are saying is it is impossible for life to have formed according to the laws of nature.

    No, I'm just pointing out what the evidence shows to be likely and what the evidence shows to be unlikely. You can deal with it however you choose. You can even put blinders on and refuse to look at it at all if you choose. In fact, I support your freedom to do exactly that.

    quote:
    That's great, we're getting somewhere here. Of course, I would be a fool to take your word on this, so you will of course provide me with relevant papers to back this up? My chemistry is a little sketchy, but I'm willing to have a go, and if you post them, perhaps another chemist here can discuss it with you.

    You want papers on high school chemistry? :) I would have no idea on how to search for those. I can recommend some chem books to you, I suppose.

    quote:
    You meant that Elephants come out of amoebas.

    Yeah, but since that in itself is magic, don't you think poof sounds much better? :)

    quote:
    I see how I got the wrong end of the stick now. Well, these little 'poofs' you are talking about...do you mean random mutation. You could just say random mutation rather than trying to make the argument look absurd with 'magic' and 'poof' and self carving animals, and 'supernatural' and 'etheral'. Why not just say random mutation, because that is what it is. In fact, if you want to short hand it, just say RM/NS we'll know what you mean.

    No, not RM and NS. There is nothing in those minor changes that could explain an elephant p......coming out of an amoeba. What environmental changes do you ever think could cause that sort of massive change? I have never heard a Darwinist even explain one stark speciation of one vertebrate to another, much less, this.

    quote:
    Nu-uh. You propose that there is no condition possible where this would occur. That would mean you have explored every single possible environment and how it operates. Have you done this? Or are you making an absolute statement based on incomplete information? Is this scientific?

    What do you mean every single environment? Where are these environments, on earth? You guys won't even explain what you mean by this. We have no unknown environments I'm aware of to even consider. Either early earth was a reducing atmosphere or it was not.

    Other than proposing a fairy tale environment with little green elves poking things into stem cells or something, I would have no idea how to take this any further.


    Design Dynamics

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 167 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 10:53 AM Modulous has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 171 by Modulous, posted 05-11-2005 2:13 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

      
    Modulous
    Member (Idle past 446 days)
    Posts: 7789
    From: Manchester, UK
    Joined: 05-01-2005


    Message 171 of 213 (207138)
    05-11-2005 2:13 PM
    Reply to: Message 170 by Jerry Don Bauer
    05-11-2005 1:01 PM


    What? I'm not aware of any chemists working on something they think goes against the laws of chemistry. They would be rather silly, wouldn't they, since they discovered those laws themselves?

    We agree! I thought the idea would be totally absurd too! So obviously the chemists that are working abiogensis don't think it is against the laws of chemistry.

    No, I'm just pointing out what the evidence shows to be likely and what the evidence shows to be unlikely. You can deal with it however you choose. You can even put blinders on and refuse to look at it at all if you choose. In fact, I support your freedom to do exactly that.

    You agree though - that life can form through the laws of nature? That it isn't impossible? And in the right conditions it might be almost inevitable? All you have to do now, is work out what those conditions are and what the probability of those conditions arising are.

    Yeah, but since [elephants coming out amoebas] in itself is magic, don't you think poof sounds much better?

    That would be magic, of course. Nobody is proposing that an elephant comes out of an amoeba though, so no 'poofing' required.

    No, not RM and NS. There is nothing in those minor changes that could explain an elephant p......coming out of an amoeba. What environmental changes do you ever think could cause that sort of massive change? I have never heard a Darwinist even explain one stark speciation of one vertebrate to another, much less, this.

    An elephant did not come from an amoeba, and nobody is saying this happened. As you are well aware, any given elephant came from something that was very much similar to its parents. Thus, any given elephant is very different from its 500th cousin removed, is very different from its 10,000th cousin removed. You know this perfectly well, yet you are choosing to make it out to be more absurd than it is.

    You are deliberately misrepresenting the ToE. I suspect its to get a reaction in the hopes of distracting us from the issue at hand. As such, any further misrepresentations of this level of absurdity and I will either do likewise back to you and we can degrade into childishness. Take your 'poof' into the evolution forum, leave it out of here.

    What do you mean every single environment? Where are these environments, on earth? You guys won't even explain what you mean by this. We have no unknown environments I'm aware of to even consider. Either early earth was a reducing atmosphere or it was not.

    Its perfectly simple. Let me try and explain it once again. What are the chances of Calcium Silicon and Oxygen coming together and forming Slag? The question is meaningless without considering the environment those elements are in, the quantities, and the lay of the land. For instance, in a blast furnace environment its highly probable that CaSiO3 would form. However if I put some calcium and some silicon in an open glass (exposed to oxygen), I would very much doubt they would come together to form slag.

    As such, the environment (ie blast furnace) is as important a consideration as the ingredients (Ca,Si,O) in what the expected final outcome would be.

    Therefore, in order to know what will happen to our ingredients of life, we need to know what environment they are in. In your probability calculations, what environment are they in? How are they formed? What orders? Is this the only way life can form? If it is, is the only environment that life can form in? Have you explored all possible environments and come to the conclusion that life cannot form in any of them?

    This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 11-May-2005 07:18 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 170 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 1:01 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

      
    Jerry Don Bauer
    Inactive Member


    Message 172 of 213 (207223)
    05-11-2005 6:43 PM
    Reply to: Message 169 by Ooook!
    05-11-2005 11:34 AM


    Ooook! So I finally get to you.

    quote:
    Right let’s try and nip this one in the bud. My argument is not that molecular phylogenies extrapolate those made by other methods, I’m saying that they confirm them. You can predict common descent using physiological comparisons and then test that phylogenic tree using DNA sequences. If examining the physical features of various features of reptiles, birds, amphibians, fish and mammals suggests that they shared a common ancestor and then diverged from each other at different points in the past then you’d expect to see a similar phylogenic tree when you compared DNA sequences. Where’s the circular argument there?

    If you’re worried about bias, then why not do the tests yourself, or point out why they are scientifically unsound? Oodles of sequences from different organisms have been published and the programs are widely available (along with the statistical assumptions used to make them), so why don’t IDists (or YECs for that matter) show that birds and man came from separate origins?


    But they only confirm them circularly. I'm just pointing out how your detractors view this. And what tests are there for me to do? Researchers don't have DNA going back near far enough to explain the diversity of the fossil record or common descent. If I recall there is only a piddling of mitochondrial DNA dating back about 60,000 years or so. This is not good as this leaves one to speculate a whole bunch on these charts. Science is not supposed to speculate, is it?

    I don't know anything about YECs, but I would know of no tests that could confirm or falsify that man and bird came from separate origins. Herein lies the problem of Neo-Darwinism. There ARE no possible tests.

    quote:
    In addition to this, you’ve still got to tackle the hurdle that all IDists fall at. If you are saying that ‘something’ designed life, then what did it do after that? Surely it would have to have created it? Or did it just carelessly leave the blueprints lying around for someone to pick up?

    IOW creation and design are practically the same thing. By saying things like
    quote:

    I just look at the fossil record. There I see organisms coming into the record fully formed.

    you are effectively advocating an unspecified number of creation events. Why are you so afraid of being labelled creationist?


    Well, if it is important to you to label me a creationist you certainly have my permission, but I am not one. Creationists study creations and Creators usually mixed in with a healthy dose of Genesis. We study only science under the scientific method.

    There are some similarities, I suppose in that we both see events in the fossil record. You see the Cambrian explosion in there too, don't you? Or do you just ignore it and hope it will go away?

    quote:
    I don’t know how I confused you here. I’ll try and make it clearer:
    You’ve failed to explain the clear progression seen in the fossil record – like a creationist
    You’ve flat out denied common ancestry – a classical creationist stance
    You’ve indicated that ‘micro’ changes are possible, and that ‘macro’ ones are not – straight out of the creationist handbook*

    If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…it probably is a duck!


    Then I want to be YOUR duck. From this point on I want you to call me Jerry the Creationist. That is something you want and it will make your day and to me this is very important.

    quote:
    What’s your take on the age of the earth?

    Ahh...Probably about 4.6 billion years or so. Do you believe this? If so does this make you an old earth creationist? Think about it because they believe this too.

    quote:
    But these points are just a bit of a diversion really – me going on a bit of a pet rant – so I’ll get back to your points on ID:

    Um...thanks. I was really beginning to wonder if we would ever have a chance to discuss any science. You do seem rather well entrenched in religion. ;)

    quote:
    Well, the logic is flawed if they bare no resemblance to the situation they are meant to represent. This is error is amplified if people then go on to argue from the analogy rather than use it as a tool. A mousetrap, for example, is used as an analogy of complicated (IC) protein complexes, and the implication always is “When was the last time you saw a mousetrap evolve?”

    Surely you are familiar with an analogy. They work pretty good in logical argument. So again I ask you. Can you refute the 747 argument? Can you show how a tornado could sweep through a lumber yard and build a house? I mean if you cannot, then they seem like pretty good analogies to me to use to make points about spontaneous complexity.

    quote:
    When was the last time you saw a mousetrap made up of components which were all made up of the same basic material which could have a variety of properties (from structural stability to dynamic flexibility), and which look suspiciously like other things that are lying around the factory? Similarly, what intrinsic properties of a Cadillac mimic those of a sub-atomic particle? How can a computer reproduce itself?

    Again, your point seems to be going *swoosh*--Aren't Cadillacs and kidneys both made of atoms? How do YOU distinguish between dead matter and live matter. Can you tell me the difference in a dermal cell on a dog's paw one second before the death of the organism as opposed to one second after death? What IS life anyhow, Ooook?

    quote:
    I think I may have confused the thread a bit here, since it was me who brought this subject up. The important thing about the conservation of structures and the signalling events controlling them is the pattern of conservation. Tetrapod limbs are obviously modified fins, bird wings are modified reptile limbs, and bat wings are modified mammal limbs.

    Obvious to you, I would suppose, but certainly not to me. Where is your experimental evidence to support this? How can this be falsified, and if neither of these apply, then what gives you the right to call this science?

    quote:
    If you want to use human designers as an example of how a good designer works then I would submit that good designers do re-use and modify old designs, but they also know when to go back the drawing board. If you are told to make something that flew, would you try and modify the front doors of a car into a pair of wings, or would you go and design an aeroplane? Evolution doesn’t have a choice; it has to work with what is already there.

    What if the designer were quantum mechanics. That's who molecular design engineers consider the designer as. So if we don't know anything about the designer, then why surmise on its methodologies? Aren't we really both just blowing smoke here?

    quote:
    Wait a minute. It’s you that is making the claim that an increase in complexity cannot happen without a designer. Isn’t it up to you to define what complexity is for living things and then to test it? This is what I was saying: ID is missing a workable definition.

    When did I say that? When did I begin answering every question with a question? Ahem...you just asked me if I could calculate something and I said yes if you'll tell me the details. I cannot if you won't tell what it is you wish for me to calculate. But we HAVE defined what complexity in organisms is and calculate this every day. No biggie.

    quote:
    Aha! A definition! So an increase in gene size absolutely requires a designer, right?

    Nope. Wrong.

    quote:
    But hang on, can’t duplication events, frame-shift mutations, and insertions all increase the size of genes?

    Yep.

    quote:
    Where is the designer required?

    LOL...I don't know. I don't see a need for one in that situation. Why do you?

    quote:
    But the whole point is that the route taken, and the rules applied do affect the calculations.

    Show me this mathematically. I think it will take this for you to understand it.

    quote:
    Using your coin example: I’m not arguing that the probability of throwing twelve heads with twelve coins will change if I throw them three at a time or all at once – that would be silly. But what if I could throw all the coins, keep all of those that came up heads, and then throw the ones that came up tails again, keep the ones that came up heads….rinse and repeat until I had a row of heads in front of me? The odds would change wouldn’t they?

    Yep. And I would say welcome to the world of intelligent design because this is exactly what we think happened. :)

    quote:
    The main thing that calculations like these don’t take into account is the idea that proteins are meant to evolve from other proteins. Proteins are naturally modular in structure, and you see the same basic structures being repeated again and again, across the board. How can you possibly factor this kind of thing into your equations? You need to know about the intermediates.

    Not true. Genes translate proteins. Each codon will encode for a particular amino acid and when that gene mutates, a different amino acid will form. This means that the protein will fold with a different conformational entropy in that in many cases it now is not suitable to do the job the old one did. Either that protein does the job or it does not,

    quote:
    For example, I’m sure you could plug this protein sequence:
    msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn

    into your equations and come up with a suitably ludicrous number. But what if you already had this one:
    msprsclrsl rllvfavfsa aasnwlylak lssvgsisee etceklkgli qrqvqmckrn

    to play with?


    I give, what? :)

    quote:
    The fossil record of horse evolution is a wonderful chance for you to show everyone where the designer intervened. So, no assertions about pigs not giving birth to elephants or something similar. Where did the quantum stuff happen?

    I don't see how QM would have anything to do with evolution.

    quote:
    Similar to the Atheist/Agnostic Agenda you get handed once you start researching evolutionary biology.

    LOL....Ain't THAT the truth.


    Design Dynamics

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 169 by Ooook!, posted 05-11-2005 11:34 AM Ooook! has not yet responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 173 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2005 7:56 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded
     Message 174 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2005 7:57 PM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8868
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003
    Member Rating: 7.2


    Message 173 of 213 (207235)
    05-11-2005 7:56 PM
    Reply to: Message 172 by Jerry Don Bauer
    05-11-2005 6:43 PM


    Argument from analogy
    deleted duplicate

    This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-11-2005 07:57 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 172 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:43 PM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8868
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003
    Member Rating: 7.2


    Message 174 of 213 (207236)
    05-11-2005 7:57 PM
    Reply to: Message 172 by Jerry Don Bauer
    05-11-2005 6:43 PM


    Argument from analogy
    Surely you are familiar with an analogy. They work pretty good in logical argument. So again I ask you. Can you refute the 747 argument? Can you show how a tornado could sweep through a lumber yard and build a house? I mean if you cannot, then they seem like pretty good analogies to me to use to make points about spontaneous complexity.

    Analogies are exactly useless in a logical argument unless they reproduce the situation being argued about. Analogies are useful as an explanatory tool if the real case is too complex for someone to "get" right off. They can then be used as a jumping off point to understand further.

    Even for the simplified explanation use they have to model the real situation under discussion adequately or they are just a source of further confusion.

    It appears that you think the 747 from a junk yard by tornado is a useful analogy.

    However, what are the most important points to understand about darwinian evolution: the combined action of imperfect replication with selection.

    Are either of those present in the analogy you offer? No, not at all. Aircraft do not f**k! There is no selection of anything by a tornado. Your analogy doesn't need to be refuted in that it isn't analogous to the situation under discussion. Not even close.

    It is utterly ridiculous statements like this that seem to be characteristic of a lot of the ID movement. Is it any wonder that it isn't taken seriously?

    This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-11-2005 07:58 PM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 172 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 6:43 PM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 176 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 7:53 PM NosyNed has responded

      
    Silent H
    Member (Idle past 4162 days)
    Posts: 7405
    From: satellite of love
    Joined: 12-11-2002


    Message 175 of 213 (207315)
    05-12-2005 5:29 AM
    Reply to: Message 164 by Jerry Don Bauer
    05-11-2005 10:23 AM


    You are just going to have to start naming these conditions. I'm afraid your insistence there ARE conditions is not a very strong argument. What are they?

    I challenge you to find where I said, much less insisted, that there ARE conditions under which abiogenesis has a high probability. I think you will find that what I actually said is that it is unknown whether there are conditions under which abiogenesis has a high probability.

    This is opposite from your claim of knowledge which is that there is NO possible condition under which abiogenesis has a high probability. If there is anyone who must supply a proof then, it is you.

    All I have to do to prove my point is ask you to show that all the possible environmental conditions have been researched. They haven't, thus I am correct and there are other routes to still be investigated.

    There are no conditions where the probabilities are heightened. What would those be? You guys seem to want to ignore the obvious here.

    Please show how you know that there are no conditions which would heighten the probability. The fact that you don't know, or I don't know, or all the scientists in the world at this present time don't know of such conditions, does not allow one to conclude that there are no such conditions.

    Remember the Urea experiment. Until that time it was considered impossible. And if you had asked the scientist who discovered the method just a day before he discovered it, absolutely no one would have known under what conditions Urea would have a high probability of forming except by biological organisms due to their "special nature". One day later and we had an answer.

    That's the point of being a scientist and exploration, looking where we do not as yet have a concrete explanation.

    But I want to challenge you further on this. You say life chemicals were "designed", but are also arguing there are no conditions under which these chemicals can combine. So how did the designer design the molecules?

    And you think that is a simpler concept than just suggesting the organism was designed?

    You don't seem to understand Occam's razor. It is not which is the simpler stated concept, it is given the evidence, which account uses fewer mechanisms or more importantly does not use mechanisms for which there is no evidence or explanation.

    I didn't even give you a "concept", I gave you the evidence. Please explain where the designer is argued for within the evidence, or how change over time is complex when we do see change over time between generations.

    There is no word in science called impossible. Nor do we base theories on unknowns. We have to go with what seems likely

    You have just said that evo is statistically impossible and have based your theory on an unknown entity. As it stands I didn't say anything was impossible (read carefully and you'll find I was criticizing such commentary) and I am not basing any theory on an unknown.

    I am stating straight out we do not know all environmental conditions and so cannot rule out that abiogenesis, nor speciation, occured due to naturally occuring chemical reactions.

    The theory of evolution is not based on the fact that we cannot rule out abiogenesis, nor natural selection. Rather, those theories, most especially descent with modification and natural selection, are formed by looking at what we do know which is that change occurs over generations, and we have fossil evidence consistent with the idea of life beginning simply and becoming more complex.

    The underlying mechanisms of how things change were not known at the time, and are only now able to be explored, which is what we are doing.

    If a criticism is going to be lain on evolutionary theory's doorstep that it did not have all mechanisms behind change understood, that same criticism will be delivered to ID and Creationist's doorsteps as well.

    Oh, it leaves a trace all the time.

    Then please give me the traces, and the corresponding model, of how the designer interacted with life from its inception and across time. As far as I understand we have found no evidence of a designer at all, much less when these "designers" interacted with life.

    You cannot name any conditions that would overcome Le Chatlier's principle, can you? If you can, what are they?

    You are using a straw man. No, besides some high energy physics possibilities I cannot name conditions that would overcome a specific formula (chemical equations) from being true. Nor would I say such a thing.

    I am arguing that we have yet to explore all possible formulas (chemical equations).

    NO, this is not correct. 2LOT applies to open, closed and isolated systems

    You need to learn more about thermodynamics. The point I was making is that your criticism, that 2LOT stands against formation of life, would only work if the earth or specific earth locations were closed systems.

    The earth is not, and as I pointed out, neither would a bunch of hydrocarbons trapped within a plastic membrane receiving solar or geothermal energy.

    It is now time for you to explain how it stands against it, rather than just asserting that it does. I think further assertions along this line, without support, will begin to cross forum guidelines.


    holmes
    "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 164 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-11-2005 10:23 AM Jerry Don Bauer has not yet responded

      
    Jerry Don Bauer
    Inactive Member


    Message 176 of 213 (207536)
    05-12-2005 7:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 174 by NosyNed
    05-11-2005 7:57 PM


    Re: Argument from analogy
    You misunderstand what the argument from analogy is:

    Frankenstein is not very smart.
    The candidate for mayor looks like Frankenstein.
    Therefore, the candidate for mayor is not very smart.

    That is a demonstration of the fallacy in action. As you can see, it has not a thing to do with what I was discussing with Ooook.

    You would change the very fabric of modern life if you denied everyone from using analogy to communicate. Teachers use this every day in communicating a concept to students.

    quote:
    Analogies are exactly useless in a logical argument unless they reproduce the situation being argued about.

    Horse hocky. In fact, if one accurately reproduces the situation then it is no longer an analogy. You don't seem to understand what an analogy is:

    Analogy: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar."

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy

    quote:
    Aircraft do not f**k!

    Nonsense. You've never heard the term take a flying f**k? :)


    Design Dynamics

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 174 by NosyNed, posted 05-11-2005 7:57 PM NosyNed has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 177 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2005 8:17 PM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

      
    NosyNed
    Member
    Posts: 8868
    From: Canada
    Joined: 04-04-2003
    Member Rating: 7.2


    Message 177 of 213 (207549)
    05-12-2005 8:17 PM
    Reply to: Message 176 by Jerry Don Bauer
    05-12-2005 7:53 PM


    Re: Argument from analogy
    That is a demonstration of the fallacy in action. As you can see, it has not a thing to do with what I was discussing with Ooook.

    In this case the analogy you use doesn't even look like the subject under discussion. This is not the fallacy.

    You would change the very fabric of modern life if you denied everyone from using analogy to communicate. Teachers use this every day in communicating a concept to students.

    As I noted it is a useful form of communication. It is not a useful way to prove or demonstarte anything.

    Horse hocky. In fact, if one accurately reproduces the situation then it is no longer an analogy. You don't seem to understand what an analogy is:

    I understand perfectly well what an analogy is. It might say something somewhat meaningful about something else if it reproduces the important points of the more complex thing that is being analogized. However, it never does more than indicate something it can not prove anything when it is in some way "dissimilar".

    Nonsense. You've never heard the term take a flying f**k?

    You seem to have a habit of attempting to be funny when you don't have an answer for the points raised. Perhaps you would be more credible if you actually attempted to show that the 747 analogy is in any way useful when there is no imperfect reproduction or selection involved in the analogy. Which makes it not only dissimilar in some respects but dissimilar in the important respects.

    Now that you have made a funny, perhaps you would like a chance to try again.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 176 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 7:53 PM Jerry Don Bauer has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 178 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-13-2005 5:16 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

      
    Jerry Don Bauer
    Inactive Member


    Message 178 of 213 (207656)
    05-13-2005 5:16 AM
    Reply to: Message 177 by NosyNed
    05-12-2005 8:17 PM


    Re: Argument from analogy
    quote:
    In this case the analogy you use doesn't even look like the subject under discussion. This is not the fallacy.

    Um...it's not supposed to look like the subject under discussion. Then it wouldn't be an analogy. LOL....You are cracking me up dude. Post to someone a little more on your level. Leave me alone, you are trolling me.


    Design Dynamics

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 177 by NosyNed, posted 05-12-2005 8:17 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 512 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 179 of 213 (207679)
    05-13-2005 7:53 AM
    Reply to: Message 21 by Limbo
    04-28-2005 10:09 AM


    Re: A few questions.
    quote:
    Since Christian scientists are not a part of the mainstream scientific community....

    What are you talking about??

    I can think of at least 5 scientists in my husband's area (subset of the Psychology department at the University of Michigan) who are devout, churchgoing Christians.

    In fact, one of them is on his PhD advisory comittee.

    There are lots of Christians, and other religious people in the sciences.

    They just don't try to insert their religion or their personal beliefs in the supernatural into their professional work.

    quote:
    Bias is something you either see or you don't. It requires a lot of empathy and a lot of introspection.

    Actually, there is a very effective system for eliminating much bias in observations and analysis.

    This system is the combination of two systems, actually:

    The scientific method, combined with peer review.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 21 by Limbo, posted 04-28-2005 10:09 AM Limbo has not yet responded

      
    nator
    Member (Idle past 512 days)
    Posts: 12961
    From: Ann Arbor
    Joined: 12-09-2001


    Message 180 of 213 (207687)
    05-13-2005 8:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 61 by Limbo
    04-29-2005 9:42 PM


    quote:
    Its my understanding that ID theorists reject the neo-Darwinian account of macroevolution

    ...except for Behe.

    Behe accepts the Theory of Evolution, and ancient Earth, etc.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 61 by Limbo, posted 04-29-2005 9:42 PM Limbo has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019