Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
216 online now:
kjsimons, Phat (AdminPhat) (2 members, 214 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Converting raw energy into biological energy
Vacate
Member (Idle past 3502 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 286 of 314 (420074)
09-06-2007 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by Rob
09-06-2007 1:04 AM


Its only chemicals
Abiogenesis is also the evolution of life from mere chemicals in the material stance.

These mere chemicals held together by mere bonds have the ability to transmit, what we call, information; the ability to construct life from atoms. Without which we would be just a bunch of "H"'s floating around.

Don't you think that your choice of the word "mere" is oversymplifying the importance of chemicals? Even with God tossed into the equation its still quite incredible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Rob, posted 09-06-2007 1:04 AM Rob has not yet responded

kuresu
Member (Idle past 1414 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 287 of 314 (420075)
09-06-2007 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Rob
09-06-2007 1:11 AM


Re: metaphysical...
Energy is matter?
That's news. Source?

It's just what the evidence shows. Irreducibly complex organisms that self assemble based upon a quaternary digital code which contains all of the instructions to build an organism.

Evidence? Sources? You know, that which you're always demanding from us?

Remember how I said that you couldn't use an uncomfirmed book? Because on matters of god, I'm not aware of any outside confirmation of what he's like or what he is.

And you didn't answer how one could tell god's methods apart from natural methods (since you are claiming that natural methods can't do it and god did, right?)
YOu also dodged asnwering why he couldn't use the materials around him. He can do anything, right? So why would he use one method over another? How could you tell what methods he used?

ANd if you can't know, isn't it hopelessly metaphysical? YOu know, what you claimed the studies on abiogenesis to be?

Are you appreciating your own argument turned against you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Rob, posted 09-06-2007 1:11 AM Rob has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12719
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 288 of 314 (420076)
09-06-2007 1:29 AM


Chat Room Time
I'm closing this thread for the rest of the night. Take it to the chat room.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Admin
Director
Posts: 12719
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 289 of 314 (420225)
09-06-2007 10:39 PM


Time for Summations
With only 12 messages left, it's time for summations.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 290 of 314 (420295)
09-07-2007 10:14 AM


Converting raw energy into biological energy
Summation

As I asked and stated upthread (though not so nicely):

Do we have one shred of evidence for a prebiotic organism or self replicating system?

Theory is not evidence...

Do we have any evidence in the real world; emperical, ie. the fossil record, or discovered anywhere, or for any form of autonomous cycle?

I ask, because there is an earthload of evidence for biological organisms and how they function. And they're not made the in the way these masses of theoretical research assume and predict that prebiotic organisms might have been made.

What good is a 'scientific' prediction (or theory) that cannot be tested against evidence?

As for biological life, we don't have to say, "if these biological organisms were able to synthsise ATP, adenine, or manufacture other biological structures or enzymes etc, then perhaps it was a result of a, b, and c." No, we don't have to say that, because they actually exist! And they do synthesize ATP, adenine, and manufacture other biological structures, and we have evidence of that. And it's proven science. It's not tentative or theoretical.

Science is a search for proof in the natural world. We start with theory and evidence or vice versa. We then seek to find a match between the two. All abiogenesis has is theory; there is no evidence and no match.

As Richard Lewontin says plainly, 'Evolution is hopelessly metaphysical'. And he is as staunch an evolutionist and materialist as there is.

Kuresu correctly pointed out that 'prebiotic organisms' are a contradiction in terms. Yet in terms of abiogenesis, that is precisely what prebiotic chemists are assuming existed and try to reconstruct as precusors to actual and emperical organisms. They either have to admit de novo formation of life which Orgel concedes would be a near miracle, or speculate on the contradictory notion of self organizational ribozymes that allowed for the natural selection of higher states of order and eventual organisms. But that is precisely what an organism is; a self replicating autonomous cycle.

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis...The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time will tell which is correct.

This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man; the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential...Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.

(source / Darwin's Black Box Chapter 8 footnote 5 / Joyce, G.F., and Orgel, L.E. (1993) "Prospects for Understanding the origin of the RNA World" in The RNA world, ed. R.F. Gesteland and J.F. Atkins, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, p. 19, 13.)

Molbiogirl, in an attempt to show evidence of these modern pre-organisms, referred organisms that use sulfer as a means of respiriation to produce ATP. But whether in the presence of oxygen or not, organisms designed for using sulfer as an electron receptor instead of oxygen, would do so regardless of whether oxygen is present, just as organisms designed to use oxygen as an electron receptor would do so even in the presence of sulfer. Different organisms have different ways to synthesize ATP.

The point is... that all of them use ATP as the energy currency, and this poses an vexing problem for prebiotic chemists. The necessity of adenine and the inability to account for it in any biologically plausible or relevant environment, means we must defer to the actual evidence; that these organisms catalyze adenine and other biologically necessary molecules themselves with the help of enzymes that are in turn manufactured from the coding for their sequence in the DNA, which is in turn an energy dependant process needing ATP for it's functioning.

The other attempts to solve this problem (that were not addressed in this debate) such as symbiosis and complexity theory have their own immediate problems.

Symbiosis for example, actually requires two autonomous self replicating organisms that combine into one modern higher form. But it does not solve the immediate problem of the arrival of the two systems to begin with. It's bad enough a problem with one. Symbiosis also assumes that the systems, as seen in a symbiotic relationship today, have actually lost many of the functions that once made them autonomous. So, as for mitocondria, they would have to have been more complex than the relatively simple form we see today to remain autonomous.

Complexity theory is a mathematical construct created by intelligence and is tested exclusively using computer technology that is also created by intelligence.

The vaguness of complexity, though has started to turn off early boosters of the theory. Scientific American ran favoralbe articles over a number of years (one authored by Kuaffman himself). On the cover, however, the June 1995 issue asked, "Is Complexity a Sham?" Inside was an article entitled "From complexity to Perplexity" that noted the following:

Artificial life, a major subfield of complexity studies, is "fact-free science," according to one critic. But it accels at generating computer graphics.

( Behe / 'Darwins Black Box', pg. 191)

It's a chicken and egg paradox folks; we can't have one without the other. To get the molecules necessary for biological life, we need the processes of biological life that catalyze them. And to get biological life, we need the molecules necessary for biological life.

The only self replicating processes we see are called organisms. As Joyce and Orgel conceded long ago, the paradox of evolution without self replication leaves the models, postulates, and research for a self replicating robozyme a product of myth. It's de novo or nothing. It's irreducibly complex. Makes me wonder why they keep looking in the same direction since they are so frank about the problems.

It is just as Dean Kenyon and Stephen Myer have shown in their most excellent contributions to the video clip you can all watch here: http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html

Just scroll down to the man writing on the chaulkboard and click the play button on the YouTube link. It is clip 5. For the full context you should watch clip 6 which can be acessed in the menu that will pop up when the clip is finished.

And for complete context... watch all 7 clips.

Publish or Perish?

As for the questions of others above as to the explanatory power of Intelligent design and the proofs they offer, we'll have to have another thread. This thread is the search for answers to the theory of abiogenesis with material evidence.

And the verdict... there are none.

Perish!

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by molbiogirl, posted 09-08-2007 4:07 PM Rob has not yet responded

Percy
Member
Posts: 20113
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 291 of 314 (420484)
09-08-2007 3:12 AM


Summation
The creationist side again advanced yet another incarnation of the argument that sufficient evidence exists to conclude that some things in the universe could never have come about naturally and so must have been designed. This time it was the energy processes of life.

A summation of the arguments against this view isn't really warranted. It is perhaps only worth noting the apparent fruitlessness of efforts to convince creationists how really difficult demonstrating a negative is.

--Percy


Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 10:33 AM Percy has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 292 of 314 (420512)
09-08-2007 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by Percy
09-08-2007 3:12 AM


Embarrassing!
With all due respect to Percy and his worldview...

What I have focused on is the known facts and evidence. It is the positive aspects of the natural world evidence that debunk prebiotic organisms. Not on the grounds that there is missing evidence; but on the grounds that what evidence there is, points to design.

If Percy's arguments were true, he could just as easily say that 'I am trying to prove a negative by saying we have not found the evidence that the pink unicorn created the universe' and that therefore such evidence does not exist.

I never said (nor has any intelligent creationist) that there is evidence that some things could never have come about naturally. Clearly the evidence shows that some things do come about naturally. But other evidence also points to design in the field of biology. That evidence belongs in another thread. For those interested in learning more in terms of the evidence for design, you might start here: http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html The YouTube link of Dean Kenyon near the center of the page is compelling.

I never said there is no evidence... I only asked to be given some.

Publish or Perish...

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Percy, posted 09-08-2007 3:12 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-08-2007 11:06 AM Rob has responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2499 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 293 of 314 (420520)
09-08-2007 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Rob
09-08-2007 10:33 AM


Re: Embarrassing!
Rob: It is the positive aspects of the natural world evidence that debunk prebiotic organisms.

So much for the supernatural designer--!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 10:33 AM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 11:25 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 294 of 314 (420523)
09-08-2007 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Archer Opteryx
09-08-2007 11:06 AM


Re: Embarrassing!
Rob:
It is the positive aspects of the natural world evidence that debunk prebiotic organisms.

Archer: So much for the supernatural designer--!

:confused: How does evidence debunking the myth of chemical evolution exclude God?

All it means is that life appeared fully formed. Or as Orgel said, 'the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle'.

Slow down Archer... it's difficult to maintain perspective when we get this deep.

Here's the full quote:

Scientists interested in the origins of life seem to divide neatly into two classes. The first, usually but not always molecular biologists, believe that RNA must have been the first replicating molecule and that chemists are exaggerating the difficulties of nucleotide synthesis...The second group of scientists are much more pessimistic. They believe that the de novo appearance of oligonucleotides on the primitive earth would have been a near miracle. (The authors subscribe to this latter view). Time will tell which is correct.
This discussion... has, in a sense, focused on a straw man; the myth of a self-replicating RNA molecule that arose de novo from a soup of random polynucleotides. Not only is such a notion unrealistic in light of our current understanding of prebiotic chemistry, but it should strain the credulity of even an optimist's view of RNA's catalytic potential...Without evolution it appears unlikely that a self replicating ribozyme could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme.

Did you watch the YouTube link to Dr. Kenyon's illustration? http://www.detectingdesign.com/abiogenesis.html


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-08-2007 11:06 AM Archer Opteryx has not yet responded

ringo
Member
Posts: 19080
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 295 of 314 (420526)
09-08-2007 11:30 AM


Rob's argument is essentially the same as the argument that was once used against manned flight - it hasn't been done yet, so it can't be done.

He has been shown that birds can fly and his only response is that men are not birds.

He has failed to demonstrate any fundamental obstacle.


“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 296 of 314 (420528)
09-08-2007 11:32 AM


My summary.
Rob writes:

It is the positive aspects of the natural world evidence that debunk prebiotic organisms.

And this is the whole problem with the argument of this thread. The whole argument is an attempt to explain that something could not have happened, and therefore we must believe that the Protestant Christian God did it.

But the evidence that has been presented shows that one can not conclude that this something could not have happened. In fact, the evidence that has been presented in this thread shows quite well that it is entirely possible that the energy conversion processes in the modern cell could have developed naturalistically. That should be enough to destroy the argument from incredulity (not that such an argument isn't a fallacy to begin with).

So then the argument has to be modified: since scientists cannot come up with the precised, detailed history of how the energy conversion processes did, in fact, develop, then we can conclude that the natural development is impossible, and so we must conclude that the Protestant Christian God created life 6000 years ago.

Even if the thread's attempted point was accurate, that we have absolutely no knowledge of how the natural development of the cell is possible, that still leaves us with no way to conclude the existence of an intelligent designer of any sort. Any hypothesis requires external evidence to support it before it becomes a contender. Without any evidence that such an intelligent designer exists, then it is not an option for serious consideration (at least not beyond an attempt to see if positive evidence can be found).

This entire thread has been an exercise of incredulity, and incredulity maintained despite the very clear reasons that the absolute incredulity shown is not at all justified.


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:22 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 299 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:26 PM Chiroptera has not yet responded
 Message 302 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:32 PM Chiroptera has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 297 of 314 (420544)
09-08-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Chiroptera
09-08-2007 11:32 AM


Re: My summary.
No no no Chiroptera... Ringo summarized it far less words than you:
He has failed to demonstrate any fundamental obstacle.

Listen to Behe's analogy and the punchline left out by most critics of it:

Suppose you were a groundhog sitting by the side of a road several hundred times wider than the Schuylkill Expressway. There are a thousand lanes going east and a thousand lanes going west, each filled with trucks, sports cars, and minivans doing the speed limit. Your groundhog sweetheart is on the other side, inviting you to come over. You notice that the remains of your rivals in love are mostly in lane one, with some in lane two, and a few dotted out to lanes three and four; there are none beyond that. Furthermore, the romantic rule is that you must keep your eyes closed during the journey...

... Like a groundhog trying to cross a thousand-lane, there is no absolute barrier to putting together some biochemical systems gradually. But the opportunities to go wrong are overwhelming.

And... this thread is about the search for evidence of prebiotic organisms (a contradiction in terms) and key in that search is an organism that can directly utilize energy without converting it to ATP.

Got any?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 11:32 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 12:23 PM Rob has responded

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 314 (420548)
09-08-2007 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Rob
09-08-2007 12:22 PM


Re: My summary.
Got any?

Debate is over. We're giving summaries.

Edited by Chiroptera, : Added link.


I could tell you what I've read about evolution, the big-bang, super-universes, quantum foam, and all that stuff. Eventually you'd ask a question I can't answer, then I'd have to go look it up. Even If I had the time for that shit, in the end you'd ask a question science hasn't answered yet. So let's save time and skip ahead to "I don't know." -- jhuger

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:22 PM Rob has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Rob, posted 09-08-2007 12:27 PM Chiroptera has responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 299 of 314 (420550)
09-08-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Chiroptera
09-08-2007 11:32 AM


Re: My summary.
Chiroptera:
In fact, the evidence that has been presented in this thread shows quite well that it is entirely possible that the energy conversion processes in the modern cell could have developed naturalistically.

And Santa Claus might be real too... after all you can't prve a negative.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 11:32 AM Chiroptera has not yet responded

Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4750 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 300 of 314 (420551)
09-08-2007 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Chiroptera
09-08-2007 12:23 PM


Re: My summary.
Chirotera:
Debate is over. We're giving summaries.

No you're not... You're making cliams that were never established. And I will not sit by and let it go unanswered.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 12:23 PM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Chiroptera, posted 09-08-2007 12:28 PM Rob 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 © 2021