Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9181 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,280 Year: 5,537/9,624 Month: 562/323 Week: 59/143 Day: 2/19 Hour: 2/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What exactly is ID?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


(1)
Message 89 of 1273 (531553)
10-18-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by traderdrew
10-18-2009 3:46 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
could random processes arrange left handed amino acids into chains in the right order to ensure the first living cell?
Why would the "first" living cell require even amino acids, never mind just left-handed ones?
Can the amino acids be assembled in any order in a cell? I don't believe they can considering the sheer complexity of the cell.
The complexity of the first-living cell, or the complexity of modern cells? What do you know of the first living cell, and how do you know it was "complex"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by traderdrew, posted 10-18-2009 3:46 PM traderdrew has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 144 of 1273 (539739)
12-19-2009 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by traderdrew
12-18-2009 6:07 PM


Re: Aquaporins
Should we pretend the first living cell doesn't not need channels like aquaporins? What would have happened if it didn't have those narrow channels and the mechanisms to regulate what flows in and out of the cell?
you really think that those working in abiogenesis suggest that the first "cells" came ready prepared with advanced "machinery" such as aquaporins??? No wonder you have no ability to understand how abiogenesis could be naturalistic. The first cell membranes would have been permeable to small molecules, impermeable to large molecules. That is all. Do I really need to explain how this could be possible?
This is as basic and confused as creationists asking for evolution to show new limbs appearing in a generation, completely failing to appreciate that the terapodal bodyplan hasn't significantly changed in 400 million years

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by traderdrew, posted 12-18-2009 6:07 PM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 10:36 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 179 of 1273 (539894)
12-20-2009 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 10:36 AM


Re: Aquaporins
Would the chemical constituents forming proteins, in the first cell, (assuming the first cell didn't have aquaporins but was indeed porous) automatically self-organize into the right type of membrane in order to protect the elegant machinery inside the cell?
1) The early cell membranes almost certainly were not made from the chemical constituents of proteins;
and
2) what "elegant machinery inside the cell"? The first cells would have had no machinery at all. The next cells would have had rudimentary machinery. You could say that modern cells have "elegant machinery".
Are the aquaporins of the cellular membrane...
No idea - Aquaporins probably arose long after the first cells.
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 10:36 AM traderdrew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:59 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 193 of 1273 (539973)
12-21-2009 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by traderdrew
12-20-2009 9:59 PM


Re: Aquaporins
documentation please
For what? In reply to accusations that abiogenesis is not possible, all I need to do is provide plausible hypotheses for how it could be possible. If the first cells were to be found to have complex ready-made chemical machinery, then I would be the first to subscribe to the idea that some intelligent agent had made them...
To buy it would say no machinery would be necessary for a cell to replicate itself.
The first cells were most likely simple lipid vesicles - empty shells. Replication is simply an overly large shell pinching off into two vesicles, prompted by turbulence in the supporting medium. Any polymers trapped inside the vesicle would be randomly divided between the new cells. Polymers that aided vesicle growth, by for example catalysing the production of new lipids, would be selected for. And thus rudimentary "machinery" begins...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by traderdrew, posted 12-20-2009 9:59 PM traderdrew has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 210 of 1273 (540017)
12-21-2009 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by Nuggin
12-21-2009 3:53 PM


Re: Flaws of ID
Just like the Earth traveling around the Sun does not arise from the definition of gravity alone.
Hi Nuggin, good to see you around. You do realise that Smooth Operator does not believe that the Earth does travel around the Sun???

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Nuggin, posted 12-21-2009 3:53 PM Nuggin has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 335 of 1273 (540507)
12-25-2009 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 333 by Smooth Operator
12-25-2009 4:37 PM


Re: l
Genetic entropy is NOT about beneficial VS deleterious mutations! It's about accumulation of ANY mutations.Beneficial mutations still degrade genetic information and cause genetic entropy.
oh, I smell one massive assumption of front-loading
Please guys, surely this troll is long past his sell-buy date? I can smell the stink from here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-25-2009 4:37 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 403 of 1273 (540875)
12-29-2009 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Smooth Operator
12-29-2009 6:21 PM


Re: funny thing happened on the way to nirvana ...
The fitness may go down. It's not 100% neccessary that it goes down. A mutation can make the fitness and genetic information go down. But it doesn't have to. A mutation can also increase fitness and still decrease genetic information.
So if point mutation 1 decreases genetic information, what happens with point mutation 2, the inverse of point mutation 1?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Smooth Operator, posted 12-29-2009 6:21 PM Smooth Operator has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 492 of 1273 (541400)
01-03-2010 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 479 by traderdrew
01-02-2010 1:01 PM


Re: ID is Here
Science believes but, has not proven, the minimal complexity for the most simple of cells would have at least 250 to 400 genes.
so, what exactly do these "scientists" believe happened to magic a cell into existence with 250 genes? No wonder ID is so easy to believe if this is how scientists and science are mischaracterised.
Long ago in this thread I gave you a reply which you missed or conveniently ignored:
cavediver writes:
The first cells were most likely simple lipid vesicles - empty shells. Replication is simply an overly large shell pinching off into two vesicles, prompted by turbulence in the supporting medium. Any polymers trapped inside the vesicle would be randomly divided between the new cells. Polymers that aided vesicle growth, by for example catalysing the production of new lipids, would be selected for. And thus rudimentary "machinery" begins...
The most simple cells would have had NO genes. Then follow the stages of polymerisation of useful chemicals, protein manufacture, RNA, and then DNA. And this over a time measured in fractions of a billion years. Is this proof of how life began? Of course not. Is it a plausible origin of life - yes. Is it sufficient to laugh out of court any suggestions that "non-life" cannot possibly beget "life" - absolutely.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by traderdrew, posted 01-02-2010 1:01 PM traderdrew has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 830 of 1273 (544280)
01-25-2010 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 828 by Straggler
01-25-2010 8:42 AM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
Just to add that I agree 100% with Straggler on this. Of course we know the origins of ID, but there are sufficient exceptions (>0) to the rule that IDists are creationists to make it dishonest of us to claim that they are one and the same.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by Straggler, posted 01-25-2010 8:42 AM Straggler has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 853 of 1273 (544342)
01-25-2010 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by Nuggin
01-25-2010 11:40 AM


Re: Creationism ID and PR
It is my position that you can not argue that there is evidence of design unless you can tell the mechanism of design.
Sure you can. If we find encoded into our DNA the blueprint for a wormhole generator, then I'll be fairly convinced of the evidence of design without considering the mechanism of how it was done.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by Nuggin, posted 01-25-2010 11:40 AM Nuggin has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 915 of 1273 (544646)
01-27-2010 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2010 5:44 PM


Re: at least we can see how ridiculous these discussions have been
Aghhh, what have you done??? You've broken ***EVERYTHING***

This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2010 5:44 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2010 5:59 PM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 917 of 1273 (544648)
01-27-2010 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 916 by New Cat's Eye
01-27-2010 5:59 PM


Re: at least we can see how ridiculous these discussions have been
In Firefox 3.5.7 it gives up halfway through your nesting, and everthing that follows including the following posts lose their formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 916 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-27-2010 5:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 918 by Admin, posted 01-27-2010 6:12 PM cavediver has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1062 of 1273 (547648)
02-21-2010 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1059 by Brad H
02-21-2010 4:54 AM


Re: Numbers
Again ID only says that complex specified information has only been observed coming from an intelligent source
Given that the word "intelligent" has such a loose definition, surely what you mean to say is that CSI has only been observed coming from a human? So, what you are suggesting is that as you think that biological systems exhibit csi, a human (or humans) must have been involved in their design?
If you don't mean to conflate "intelligent source" with human, can you give evidenced examples of non-human intelligent sources?
Furthermore, we still have all these at-best extremely loosely defined terms such as "complex", "specified" and "information". Can you give various examples of things designed by humans that exhibit csi, and show us the algorithm by which we determine that they do indeed exhibit csi. Then can you show us the same algorithm demonstrating other human designes that do not exhibit csi?
I'm sure that you will agree that without the above, we all just throwing unspecified terms around and talking nonsense.
Thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 4:54 AM Brad H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1063 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 8:26 AM cavediver has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3762 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 1066 of 1273 (547663)
02-21-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1063 by Brad H
02-21-2010 8:26 AM


Re: Numbers
While it is true that the highest levels of csi, so far, have only been observed coming from humans as the source, it is not true that humans are the only observed source of csi.
But I have a huge problem agreeing with you simply because you have not defined CSI, nor given a method or algorithm for detecting csi.
A simple birds nest with its circular bowl shape and also lined with soft feathers, would never be considered to have been formed by random processes.
Would it not? What are you defining as random processes? Would the formation of say the Amazon and its delta be considered random? Is the complexity exhibited by the Amazon delta not greater than that of a bird's nest? Why would one have csi and not the other?
Since we have not even begun to scratch the surface of fully comprehending the complexity of the DNA molecule, (based on observation) such a sophisticated code can be concluded to have originated from a highly intelligent source. One that is much more intelligent than humans.
Nonsense - the DNA molecule is actually very simple. It is made up of four basic blocks. Each block has a level of complexity, but none more so than many naturally occuring organic molecules that we see floating through space. As a code, it is far less complex than many man-made codes that we use in IT and communications technology. And so my conclusion here is that if there is any design, it is design that could be accomplished by far less intelligence than we currently exhibit. Perhaps you meant to discuss something more than just DNA?
(It should be stressed that it cannot be wholey regarded as a code, as there are (I believe rare) instances where the chemical structure of the bases have an affect beyond their base representation - this is entirely to be expected in an evolutionary paradigm, yet as design it stinks - as any competent programmer would tell you)
As for your request on calculating information, we have to recognize that there are many different forms of information, but not all information is complex and not all information is specific.
The random letters "gbdxuvms," calculate to carry much more complexity than do the two letters "hi," but those two letters are much more specific and mean more to us than the other eight letters do.
Please describe the algorithm by which you come to this conclusion regarding the complexity and the specificity. What process must I go through to determine that "hi" is more specific than "gbdxuvms,", and how much more specific is "hi" than "he" or "ho" or "hu"?
Specificity requires that both the sender and the receiver recognize a signal to mean something.
So it is impossible to measure the specificity of a piece of information? Specificity requires the entire system of sender, information sent, and receiver? Excellent. So what is this system in the case of the bird's nest, and again, how do we measure the specificty?
The more complex and specific the signals are, the more intelligent the source must be.
We recognize that the arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA molecule is complex.
But I still do not know how you are measuring specificity. So I cannot agree with you. How complex is the Amazon delta? And how specific is it?
Even evolutionist Richard Dawkins agrees that the amount of information in the DNA of a single celled amoeba is greater than 1000 sets of encyclopedias.
Does amount relate to complexity? Or to specificity? Or to neither?
However most microbiologists also recognize that not only is it very complex, but it is also very specific.
Do you have the definitions that they are using to measure this complexity and specificity?
Thanks
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1063 by Brad H, posted 02-21-2010 8:26 AM Brad H 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