Cars do not self-replicate. Even highly computerized ones.

Yep. And Peer Pressure might be added. I'm also wondering whether "Personal Experience" deserves a separate mention for a source of beliefs. By personal experience, I mean the coincidence or causality of resulting events, tranquility, or satisfaction, or their lack as in the Rolling Stones, "I Can't Get No Satisfaction." The next question is when someone expresses an opinion not based on evidence, which of the previously listed sources is the opinion coming from. -Q Querius

First hand testimony Authority of scholarship Silver Asiatic

Good point, Jerry. If beliefs aren't based on empirical evidence, then they could be based on Logic Ideology Revelation from God Prejudice Popular opinion False information Willful acceptance or denial Have I missed any others? -Q Querius

He’s entitled to his opinions. I disagree with every one of them

Using the Justified Belief criteria for truth, what is the basis for a justified belief for disagreeing that life evolved from physical processes? Most of us know that comment here is that there is no evidence for such a belief other than the logical fallacy, of begging the question.

I don’t have any evidence for what I believe but I believe it any way

jerry

Indeed! Thanks, Bornagain77. -Q Querius

Enjoyed your post @ 14 BA77... always good to show the quotes that undercut evolution from the espousers of the view themselves. This isn't a debate about science. It's a debate about worldview. Clearly. Thanks :) zweston

To echo what ET and Querius have already stated in response to Seversky,,, in regards to engineers commenting on biology itself.

Seversky: "I would not be so presumptuous as to imply that my engineering expertise made my views on evolution as authoritative as those of evolutionary biologists."

First off, the term 'evolutionary biology' is itself an oxymoron.

An oxymoron is a figure of speech that juxtaposes concepts with opposing meanings within a word or phrase that creates an ostensible self-contradiction. - wikipedia

The word "evolutionary" is constantly tacked on to the word 'biology' by Darwinists to make it seem as if evolutionary thinking is an indispensable part of biology, and/or with the science of biology. Yet, It doesn't have anything to do with the science of biology!,,, It never has had anything to do with biology and it never will have anything to do with biology. As Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, stated, "In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all." - Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

And as Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, stated, "most (biologists) can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas."

"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one.” - Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).

And as the late Philip Skell stated in an article entitled "Why Do We Invoke Darwin?", "I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."

Why Do We Invoke Darwin? - 2005 Excerpt: "Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No. I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss. In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.,,, Darwinian evolution – whatever its other virtues – does not provide a fruitful heuristic (guiding principle) in experimental biology." Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences. ?http://www.discovery.org/a/2816

Darwinists simply have no experimental evidence whatsoever that any biological system could have arisen by unguided Darwinian processes. As biochemist Franklin Harold honestly admitted in 2005, "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

PNAS Paper Admits Understanding the Origin of Cellular Features Is a "Glaring Gap" in Evolutionary Biology - Casey Luskin - December 10, 2014 Excerpt: In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold wrote in an Oxford University Press monograph that "there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations." Last month, a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, "Evolutionary cell biology: Two origins, one objective," admitted much the same thing.,,, ,,,"a full mechanistic understanding of evolutionary processes will never be achieved without an elucidation of how cellular features become established and modified." Though they don't put it quite as bluntly as Franklin Harold, this paper's message is no less potent: modern evolutionary biology lacks explanations for the origin of molecular machines. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/12/pnas_paper_admi091901.html

Given to abject failure of Darwinian evolutionists to be able to demonstrate the origin of even a single biological system, (or even a single protein), then it is highly disingenuous for Darwinists to try to tack the word "evolutionary' onto the word biology every chance that they get, as if evolution has/had anything whatsoever to do with the existence of biology and/or the existence of biological science.. Organisms, and the biological systems therein, despite what Darwinists try to repeatedly and falsely claim, simply are not a cobbled together as a series of adequate compromises, but are instead found to be, time and time again, optimal, or very close to being optimal.. As Princeton physics professor William Bialek stated, "While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.,,,The idea of performance near the physical limits crosses many levels of biological organization, from single molecules to cells to perception and learning in the brain,,,,"

William Bialek - Professor Of Physics - Princeton University: Excerpt: "A central theme in my research is an appreciation for how well things “work” in biological systems. It is, after all, some notion of functional behavior that distinguishes life from inanimate matter, and it is a challenge to quantify this functionality in a language that parallels our characterization of other physical systems. Strikingly, when we do this (and there are not so many cases where it has been done!), the performance of biological systems often approaches some limits set by basic physical principles. While it is popular to view biological mechanisms as an historical record of evolutionary and developmental compromises, these observations on functional performance point toward a very different view of life as having selected a set of near optimal mechanisms for its most crucial tasks.,,,The idea of performance near the physical limits crosses many levels of biological organization, from single molecules to cells to perception and learning in the brain,,,," http://www.princeton.edu/~wbialek/wbialek.html

As 'optimality' itself makes clear, Evolutionary ideas are simply useless, (as Philip Skell pointed out), as "a fruitful heuristic (guiding principle) in experimental biology." Even arch Darwinist Jerry Coyne himself admitted that, in regards to practical benefits, "evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits."

“Truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of ‘like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.” - Jerry Coyne, “Selling Darwin: Does it matter whether evolution has any commercial applications?,” reviewing The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life by David P. Mindell, in Nature, 442:983-984 (August 31, 2006).

Whereas, on the other hand, there is a fairly substantial economic payoff to be had for presupposing superior engineering and/or 'Intelligent Design' in life, as is testified to by the burgeoning field of Biomimicry:

Eyeballing Design "Biomimetics" Exposes Attacks on ID as Poorly Designed By: Casey Luskin - December 2011 Perhaps the most familiar example of biomimetics is the body shape of birds serving as the inspiration for aircraft design. But the list of fascinating cases where engineers have mimicked nature to develop or improve human technology goes on and on: • Faster Speedo swimsuits have been developed by studying the properties of sharkskin. • Spiny hooks on plant seeds and fruits led to the development of Velcro. • Better tire treads were created by understanding the shape of toe pads on tree frogs. • Polar bear furs have inspired textiles and thermal collectors. • Studying hippo sweat promises to lead to better sunscreen. • Volvo has studied how locusts swarm without crashing into one another to develop an anti-collision system. • Mimicking mechanisms of photosynthesis and chemical energy conversion might lead to the creation of cheaper solar cells. • Copying the structure of sticky gecko feet could lead to the development of tape with cleaner and dryer super-adhesion. • Color-changing cuttlefish have inspired television screens that use a fraction of the power of standard TVs. • DNA might become a framework for building faster microchips. • The ability of the human ear to pick up many frequencies of sound is being replicated to build better antennas. • The Namibian fog-­basking beetle has inspired methods of desalinizing ocean water, growing crops, and producing electricity, all in one!,,, The answer is hard to miss. The widespread practice and success of biomimetics among technology-creating engineers has powerful implications that point to intelligent design (ID). After all, if human technology is intelligently designed, and if biological systems inspire or outperform man-made systems, then we are confronted with the not-so-subtle inference that nature, too, might have been designed. http://www.discovery.org/a/18011

In fact, to the consternation of Darwinists, within the field of 'systems biology, we find that, "A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, "

"It has become clear in the past ten years that the concept of design is not merely an add-on meta-description of biological systems, of no scientific consequence, but is in fact a driver of science. A whole cohort of young scientists is being trained to “think like engineers” when looking at biological systems, using terms explicitly related to engineering design concepts: design, purpose, optimal tradeoffs for multiple goals, information, control, decision making, etc. This approach is widely seen as a successful, predictive, quantitative theory of biology." David Snoke*, Systems Biology as a Research Program for Intelligent Design - 2014 http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/viewArticle/BIO-C.2014.3 How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design - July 2014 Excerpt: Snoke lists various features in biology that have been found to function like goal-directed, top-down engineered systems: *"Negative feedback for stable operation." *"Frequency filtering" for extracting a signal from a noisy system. *Control and signaling to induce a response. *"Information storage" where information is stored for later use. In fact, Snoke observes: "This paradigm [of systems biology] is advancing the view that biology is essentially an information science with information operating on multiple hierarchical levels and in complex networks [13]. " *"Timing and synchronization," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that different processes and events happen in the right order. *"Addressing," where signaling molecules are tagged with an address to help them arrive at their intended target. *"Hierarchies of function," where organisms maintain clocks to ensure that cellular processes and events happen at the right times and in the right order. *"Redundancy," as organisms contain backup systems or "fail-safes" if primary essential systems fail. *"Adaptation," where organisms are pre-engineered to be able to undergo small-scale adaptations to their environments. As Snoke explains, "These systems use randomization controlled by supersystems, just as the immune system uses randomization in a very controlled way," and "Only part of the system is allowed to vary randomly, while the rest is highly conserved.",,, Snoke observes that systems biology assumes that biological features are optimized, meaning, in part, that "just about everything in the cell does indeed have a role, i.e., that there is very little 'junk.'" He explains, "Some systems biologists go further than just assuming that every little thing has a purpose. Some argue that each item is fulfilling its purpose as well as is physically possible," and quotes additional authorities who assume that biological systems are optimized.,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/07/when_biologists087871.html

So thus in conclusion, and ironically, we find that engineers are actually far more qualified to comment on biology, and biological systems in particular than 'evolutionary biologists' are qualified to do so. i.e. So much for Seversky's false two-bit claim that engineers have no right to comment on, ahem, 'evolutionary biology'. If anything, 'evolutionary biologists' would benefit greatly if they humbled themselves and learned a thing or two from engineers so that they could more fully appreciate and understand biological systems that they are dealing with in the first place. But alas, it has been my experience that the term 'humble Darwinist" is as much of an oxymoron as the term 'evolutionary biologist' is, if not more so. i.e. As Seversky himself gives ample evidence to, being a Darwinist apparently means, first and foremost, never, ever, humbling yourself and honestly admitting that you were wrong about 'evolutionary biology'. bornagain77

Systems and (body) parts that run via electricity or at least charged particles. Sounds like a job for engineers to me. ET

ET @11, Nicely stated! And when some biologists stupidly assert that the retina is facing backwards and the human knee is poorly designed, they're really just demonstrating their incompetence in engineering. Sadly, much of what passes for biology curriculum is simply memorizing vocabulary. Far more interesting are the amazing systems and inter-dependencies, perhaps starting at the ecological level for a change. -Q Querius

seversky:

I would also hope that, if I were an engineer, I would not be so presumptuous as to imply that my engineering expertise made my views on evolution as authoritative as those of evolutionary biologists.

Evolutionary biologists can't even answer the most simple questions. They may know biology but they don't have a clue as to how it all came to be. And AGAIN, it is NOT the expertise in their fields that makes their views on biology authoritative. But engineering is still very important to understanding biology. And no one cares what you think about that as it is a reality that has been known for decades. ET

Martin_r/5

Seversky, and what is your education ?

I will say I am neither a scientist nor an engineer but, beyond that, my educational qualifications are none of your business. I would also hope that, if I were an engineer, I would not be so presumptuous as to imply that my engineering expertise made my views on evolution as authoritative as those of evolutionary biologists. Seversky

ET @8,

You don’t seem to understand how knowledge and education work.

So true! In the high tech companies that I've worked for and friends who work at others, people often have very different educational backgrounds than their current assignments. You probably know of at least as many examples as I do. Often there's transference of problem solving and the creativity and intelligence to adapt to new technologies . . . or vice versa into old ones (an acquaintance of mine is a mathematician devoted to studying topos theory in relation to quantum mechanics, but he makes his living as an ordinary janitor). What often seem to be the most important qualities involve adaptability, passion, and perseverance. I'd also need to add that communication skills are super important to be able to understand, organize, support, and articulate complex ideas or proposals. -Q Querius

seversky:

He’s entitled to his opinions. I disagree with every one of them

You don't have anything to refute those opinions.

Now, how do his credentials as a medical device engineer make him any more qualified to comment on abiogenesis then you or I?

They don't. It's his education on the subject via the reading of the relevant and current research that makes him qualified. You are only qualified to deny reality and erect strawmen.

What makes him more authoritative then people actually working in the field?

The people working in the field cannot refute him. And it's their research that was the impetus for what he wrote.

Would you say that a marine engineer is as well-qualified to comment on aircraft design as an aeronautical engineer?

It is very possible. You don't seem to understand how knowledge and education work. Weird. ET

Martin_r @3, You don't understand. Regardless of the facts, Seversky's disagreement alone constitutes irrefutable contradicting evidence. (smile) -Q Querius

He's got a PHD (Piled Higher and Deeper) from TrollU :) bornagain77

Seversky, and what is your education ? martin_r

Martin_r/3

As we can see, Rob Stadler is a very skilled engineer.

Yes, he is.

Later on, Rob also comments on abiogenesis This process is: Unobservable Unnatural Unscientific Irrational Faith-based

He's entitled to his opinions. I disagree with every one of them Now, how do his credentials as a medical device engineer make him any more qualified to comment on abiogenesis then you or I? What makes him more authoritative then people actually working in the field? Would you say that a marine engineer is as well-qualified to comment on aircraft design as an aeronautical engineer? Seversky

let me briefly introduce Rob Stadler

Rob Stadler received a BS in biomedical engineering from Case Western Reserve University, an MS in electrical engineering from MIT, and a PhD in medical engineering from the Harvard/MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology. With 19 years of experience as a scientist in the medical device industry, he has authored 17 peer-reviewed manuscripts, has obtained more than 100 US patents, and his research and innovation have contributed to medical devices that are implanted in over 1 million patients worldwide. His book The Scientific Approach to Evolution was published in September 2016, and is available on Amazon.

As we can see, Rob Stadler is a very skilled engineer. In the video, Rob Stadler also said

There are lots of people, growing number of people, even pretty smart people who are trying to convince us with the opposite, that you can start with something very simple, like primordial soup, and a natural process will build up very complicated molecules and load them up with information content and highly organize them into structures ... "

Let me add few things: the above alone sounds absurd enough, but the same people (biologists) claim, that this unguided natural process, also invented many features to keep DNA molecule intact. Allegedly, Nature invented various DNA damage sensing molecules, various DNA proofreading and repair molecules, in other words, the same unguided natural process is trying hard to keep DNA molecule content intact. Why on Earth would an blind unguided natural process where is no foresight do that ? And, how this blind unguided natural process where is no foresight even knows, what is the right state of the DNA molecule, how does it know, that e.g. base pair mismatch is NO GOOD, or the double strand break IS NO GOOD, that other replications errors ARE NO GOOD... HOW DOES IT KNOW ???? Later on, Rob also comments on abiogenesis

This process is: Unobservable Unnatural Unscientific Irrational Faith-based

martin_r

The Basic Building Blocks & the Origin of Life (Long Story Short, Ep. 4) - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFtnwriQRi8 Tonight, New “Long Story Short” Video Delivers a Dose of Reality for Origin-of-Life Researchers Rob Stadler - August 17, 2021 https://evolutionnews.org/2021/08/tonight-new-long-story-short-video-delivers-a-dose-of-reality-for-origin-of-life-researchers/ Researchers Overlook Toxic Products in Origin-of-Life Experiments Rob Stadler - August 24, 2021 https://evolutionnews.org/2021/08/researchers-overlook-toxic-products-in-origin-of-life-experiments/ Purifying Bad Results: How Origin-of-Life Researchers Cheat via “Relay Synthesis” Rob Stadler - September 1, 2021 https://evolutionnews.org/2021/09/purifying-bad-results-how-origin-of-life-researchers-cheat-via-relay-synthesis/ bornagain77

Brilliant video! This is a nice overview of some of the immense problems with abiogenesis and naturalistic materialism. Check out the electrical ATP synthase nano-motor comprising 20+ proteins and spinning at 7,800 rpm, which is used to power the ADP-ATP cycle, the source of energy within cells. The ATP synthase motor includes a rotor, stator, and cam shaft. Its function is to restore ADP to ATP. https://youtu.be/zC7yOrUdf9M?t=2023 We're asked to believe all this and much more happened from random mutations by means of a thick application of Mighta, Musta, and Coulda Logic Putty (tm) . -Q Querius