How does Complexity demonstrate Design

All 3 of those "proofs" you've given clearly demonstrate the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance:ForbiddenForget the possibility of DNA possibly forming by itself via abiogenesis processes for a minute. In fact, I'm willing to be a full skeptic like yourself for a second and say it couldn't have happened.Now, being in this position, what would make me inclined to think that an Intelligent Creator helped contribute to the process? And what would differentiate that possibility from, say, a meteor with RNA inside it dropping off in our primordial soup? Or more to the point, what would differentiate a group of martians from creating us from scratch, vs. a Divine Creator starting things up?I personally need to have some positive, verifiable, observed evidence that a Divine Creator was responsible for it all in order for me to fully submit myself to the possibility. I need to be able to see some type of evidence, without attempting to shoot down any other possible ideas of how things started (hence, avoiding the false dilemna fallacy), in order for me to believe a Divine Creator was responsible.Now, aside of trying to shoot down other possibilities like random chance occurrences, martian intervention, and the like, can you present to me any positive, observable, and verifiable evidence that there was a Divine Creator intervening somehow from the getgo?

MisterOpus1,You're being way too hard on our pal yxifix here. What is it you don't find cogent about this creationist-logic one-two punch?regards,
Esteban Hambre

Mr Hambre,Convincing, isn't he?This is why I always go straight for the logical flaw, & formally name it. If I'd made such an error, you'd offer a counter example where the reasoning was identical, but the conclusion different, & I would understand that my "proof" logic, couldn't be. But such intellectual consistencies are beyond these poor folk.He currently is refusing to clarify his position because I am perpetrating false facts (without naming them, or supporting his position), the mere allegation is good enough, appatarently !!! Not that isn't a reason to clarify his position, of course. Sweet Jesus. If there was a god, surely it wouldn't be just the fundamentalists he'd deny brains? It's anti-favouritism, surely?Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Oh.. the experiment is proof.. but it isn't proof of what you are thinking of. It is proof that complex organisms don't spontaniously come togather right away... That , of course, would falisfy evoultionThe point you seem to miss is that according to the theory of evolution, changes in the organisms come slowly, and with random mutation with the filter of natural selection allows for the increase in complexity.So, you see, evolution is not 'random', but it does not require a 'design' either, since the natural process of choose those organisms that are better suited to survive to reproduce can allow organisms
form complexity over time.Pointing to something and saying it is evidence is one thing. However, you have to back up what that 'evidence' means. The evidence you are pointing to disproves your thesis, and is not evidence for it.

Let's try something.Imagine a number between 0 and 1000. An evolutionist could evolve the number in no more than 31 steps?Would you like to put it to a test?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Lets learn something about required stuff for RNA, hm?

quote:

---

First, the cell makes a copy of the section of DNA to be interpreted. This process is called transcription (As in writing, transcription is the copying out of a string of text. In the cell, regions of DNA are copied into RNA molecules, which act in various ways to interpret the coded messages in DNA.). The copy is actually made of RNA (ribonucleic acid) which is a chemical similar in structure and properties to DNA - it has bases attached to a 'backbone'
RNA has a different sugar in its sugar-phosphate backbone, which is why it is called 'ribo-' instead of 'deoxyribo-'. RNA is usually a single-stranded molecule, whereas DNA is usually double-stranded.
So a section of the DNA molecule is copied into RNA. The enzyme that carries out this process is called RNA polymerase. The RNA polymerase can recognize the 'start here' and 'stop here' signals that appear in the DNA code, and catalyze the formation of an RNA molecule using bases, sugars and phosphate molecules from the nucleus. The RNA molecule that is made is called 'messenger RNA' ('mRNA') because it is responsible for carrying the 'message' from the nucleus to the cytoplasm, the outer part of the cell, where the code in the mRNA will be translated into protein.

​

Polymerase - is a protein enzyme that make new copies of molecuels such as DNA from a template strand and supplies of the four bases.DNA polymerase makes copies of DNA from a DNA template and RNA polymerase makes RNA copies from a DNA template.

​

Enzyme - Many proteins help to make our cells work better by making things work faster. These specialized proteins do things like digest our food for us, transmit nerve impulses and make our muscles work.

​

Nucleus - In cells of animals, plants and fungi, the chromosomes are contained within a sac-like structure - the nucleus. The membrane around the nuclues is punctuated by pores that allow messages to pass from the nucleus to the rest of the cell and vice versa.

​

Cytoplasm - The region of the cell in animals, plants and fungi that surrounds the nucleus and acts as the factory-floor of the cell. All the instructions from the DNA and messages from outside the cell are interpreted by the molecules in the cytoplasm.

​

mRNA (messenger RNA) - A molecule that takes the message from DNA to make a protein. mRNA is copied from DNA.

​

rRNA (ribosomal RNA) - The mRNA passes through the pores in the nuclear membrane, and makes its way to the part of the cell where proteins are made, called the rough endoplasmic reticulum (ER). It is called 'rough' ER because, under the microscope, has a bumpy, blobby appearance. The 'blobby' structures are ribosomes - the factories of the cell. Inside each ribosome are three different types of RNA molecule, called ribosomal RNA (rRNA).

​

ribosome - Protein-making factory of the cell. Made of protein and RNA, ribosomes act as a type of scaffold to coordinate the reading of the DNA code with adding new amino acids to the translated protein chain.

​

Ribosomal RNA is responsible for translation, in which the mRNA code is used to create a protein molecule. The mRNA message is 'read' in groups of three bases at a time. Each group of three bases is called a triplet, or 'codon'.
There are 4 x 4 x 4 = 64 possible codons, or combinations of three bases. Most of the codons correspond to a specific building block of protein - an amino acid. Many of the amino acids have more than one triplet coding for them. Because there are more codons (64) than there are amino acids (20), the code is described as 'degenerate'. Three of the possible codons don't actually code for an amino acid; instead they indicate 'stop' signals. One codon (ATG - for methionine)is the 'start' signal for proteins.....

​

tRNA (transfer RNA) - .....It is down to another RNA molecule, called transfer RNA (tRNA). Unfolded tRNA is roughly the same shape as a clover leaf. At one end of the 'leaf', are three crucial bases. These bases are called an 'anticodon' and are complementary to one of the codons on the mRNA molecule. When two bases will bind to each other, they are said to be 'complementary'. The base A always binds to T (or U in RNA), and C always binds to G. For the triplet GUC, the complementary codon would be CAG. These two codons would bind firmly together, with hydrogen bonds forming between each of the complementary bases.
Each tRNA molecule becomes attached specifically to one of the 20 amino acids. As the protein is being formed, each codon on the mRNA molecule is read, one at a time. For each codon, the tRNA molecule with the complementary anticodon temporarily binds to the mRNA. The amino acid that is joined to the end of the tRNA molecule is brought in line with the growing polypeptide chain, and the amino acid links to the end of that chain. The tRNA disengages from the mRNA molecule, and the next codon on the mRNA molecule is available to be 'read'. The appropriate tRNA molecule is again joined to the mRNA molecule, and its amino acid joined to the polypeptide chain.

​

The process of making a protein is called translation and is very similar to translating from one language to another - in this case from the four-letter language of DNA (interpreting all the full stops and starts of 'sentences') into the 20-letter language of proteins.

---

You see? RNA can't be created without already existing DNA and DNA can't be created without already existing RNA. That was simple. You must agree. Yes, sure, it is. Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code.
1. Computer can be created by a man but without program can do absolutely nothing. The same as a cell can do absolutely nothing without DNA code.
2. There can't be done any 'good' mutations needed for macro-evolution (eg code for any color) until a code is written for them in RNA (only intelligence can do that). So is it now clear? Agree? Read an answer above, then please reply.

It doesn't matter man, it's the same all the way 'up'.... well, ok, if you like, in this case you have to explain how a code for legs (eg) 'evolved' in RNA during evolution.If you say there was already complete human cell at the beginning that would be against theory of evolution, sorry as for example no plants or chicken could be created.I am looking forward to seeing your answer. Demagogy. I could answer you quite easily but I'm talking about sponteaneous generation, not about 'evolution' of bacteria. Is it a proof against spontaneous generation or not?PS: What's the reason you don't what to prove a creation of the initial information anymore (you tried hard before)? Let me guess what....

Welcome on board: message 257
message 259
message 265mark24, crashfrog, wounded king, MisterOpis1.... (hopefully I have mentioned anybody, if not, excuse me)who's next?

Funny man.... time to show your example:
PS: Please answer what's wrong with these facts (so please show me one example which shows it is not a fact, thank you):
a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).Don't forget... example.... if you don't know about any... say it. That will be enough.as well as:Have a look at the experiment -> Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code.
1. Computer can be created by a man but without program can do absolutely nothing. The same as a cell can do absolutely nothing without DNA code.or if you are saying you don't care how a cell was created->
2. There can't be done any 'good' mutations needed for macro-evolution until a code is written for them in RNA (only intelligence can do that). So is it now clear? Agree?If you say there was already complete human cell at the beginning that would be against theory of evolution, sorry as for example no plants could be created.I am awaiting clear answers from you.

OK, now to second example.Have a look at the experiment -> Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code.
1. Computer can be created by a man but without program can do absolutely nothing. The same as a cell can do absolutely nothing without DNA code.or if you are saying you don't care how a cell was created->
2. There can't be done any 'good' mutations needed for macro-evolution until a code is written for them in RNA (only intelligence can do that). So is it now clear? Agree?If you say there was already complete human cell at the beginning that would be against theory of evolution, sorry as for example no plants could be created.OR you are saying if we give a computer time (eg 500 billions years), it could do some operations without a program?I am looking forward to seeing your answer.

VERY VERY NICE EXAMPLE.you are talking about micro-evolution mutations (numbers 0-1000 already exist in RNA). So lets apply it to macroevolution:Show me how a number 2000 can be imagined between 0-1000 and then evolved. Thank you.Don't forget to answer. Really nice example, thanks for your help.

Again, you totally misunderstand.Anything, any feature, any attribute can be evolved through random chance and the filter of natural selection. It happens all the time. There is no difference whatsoever between macro and micro evolution, and the proof is all around you. Different things exist.The example I used shows that it is not only possible, but it is very easy to see how anything out there evolved from the simplest original living thing. Buy the way, to evolve 2000 would only involve one more step at the most, or 32 steps max. If you wanted to evolve a number a full order of magnitude greater, say 20,000, it might take as long as 42 steps.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Welcome on board:

​

message 257
message 259
message 265

​

mark24, crashfrog, wounded king, MisterOpis1.... (hopefully I have mentioned anybody, if not, excuse me)

​

who's next?

---

yxifix,I'm not really interested in what others had to say about this. I am interested in what you are arguing, and the current logical fallacy you are running into here.I told you that I'm willing to negate the possibility of random chance creating the first proteins of life. By doing so I am willing to be "on your side" for a moment, so to speak. I am willing to submit that we just don't have enough information about the origins of life to feel comfortable with the idea of random processes creating the first proteins.Okay?Now, in order for me to feel comfortable with what you are arguing, an Intelligent Designer starting the process, I would very much appreciate some positive, verifiable, and observable evidence that there was, indeed, an Intelligent Designer responsible for it all.You cannot explain to me the reason is because it's just too unlikely for a random event to happen, because I'm willing to forego the argument from ignorance fallacy this is creating and agree with you here for the moment.You cannot therefore conclude that since it a random event is too unlikely the only viable solution is therefore an Intelligent Designer, because this creates the argument from false dilemna fallacy. There are other possibilities of the event occurring, ranging anywhere from a meteor carrying the life's proteins (and perhaps even life's beginning cells), to a martian from another planet dropping off a couple of beginning cells and RNA proteins.So in order for me to be convinced that an Intelligent Designer of some sort, began life's process, I need to have some positive, verifiable, and observable evidence that this ID was responsible.Do you have this positive evidence that clearly demonstrates this?

Yxifix - what you describe is true for a fully formed eukaryotic cell, but is not true in general.RNA and DNA can be created by simple chemical reactions requiring essentially none of the details you describe.I routinely create enormous amounts of DNA and RNA in the lab using such a chemical reaction, which includes NO cells, and only a single enzyme.As has been explained already by Ooooook!, some RNAs (as you describe also) can act as enzymes, and self-replicating RNAs have been created that require no other interacting molecules.Here's full text of a peer-reviewed journal article that provides some background on how RNA can form by chemical reactions, and how UV light can act as a selective force to drive RNA evolution. It may not be the best reference but the full text was available.... But what if an electromagnetic disturbance scrambled the hard drive, accidentally creating binary code for a small computer virus, which subsequently replicates, filling the hard drive with copies of itself, and thus information?Then the computer would be "doing something." Incorrect. Red blood cells don't have DNA code, but they transport oxygen throughout your body. edited to fix link...This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 08-18-2004 01:53 PM

pink sasquatch writes:

quote:

---

Yxifix - what you describe is true for a fully formed eukaryotic cell, but is not true in general.

​

RNA and DNA can be created by simple chemical reactions requiring essentially none of the details you describe.

​

I routinely create enormous amounts of DNA and RNA in the lab using such a chemical reaction, which includes NO cells, and only a single enzyme.

​

As has been explained already by Ooooook!, some RNAs (as you describe also) can act as enzymes, and self-replicating RNAs have been created that require no other interacting molecules.

​

Here's full text of a peer-reviewed journal article that provides some background on how RNA can form by chemical reactions, and how UV light can act as a selective force to drive RNA evolution. It may not be the best reference but the full text was available....

---

Well crap, that kinda does a little number to my temporary belief with yxifix that RNA and DNA cannot arise randomly and/or spontaneously. Nevertheless, just for argument sake I'm still willing to stick with yxifix's argument that it's just simply impossible for life to come from a few proteins and RNA strands to where we are today. But what I need now from yxifix is positive, verifiable, observable, and falsifiable evidence of his alternative theory of an Intelligent Designer starting it all.Hopefully his answer will be coming soon, because I really think there has to be some evidence out there of some sort that an Intelligent Designer started the whole process of life from non-life.