Intelligent Design

Fisking a Biochemist’s Non-scientific Critique of ID

Spread the love

In the OOL post below a commenter named Okfanriffic writes:

Hi guys. I work as a biochemist and like most biochemists we are concerned with understanding biology so that we can combat disease. An important part of science is understanding the underlying processes. Think about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on! Science works, guys! Understanding origins and fundamentals has always proved productive and as such research into life’s origins is reasonable.Remember most people who call themselves christian accept the bible as metaphorical and accept that their god creates using natural processes (the entire catholic and anglican communion of 1.3 billion christians)So all science is doing is uncovering how your god did its magic. Think about it. If we uncover a natural process you can just say your god did it but if we can’t that might be proof of supernatural god magic!

I will fisk this comment from the bottom up:

“So all science is doing is uncovering how your god did its magic.”

Even though you are trying to be an insufferably smug condescending ass (and succeeding admirably I might add), what you say here is actually not far from the truth. Kepler, a Christian and one of the greatest scientists of all time, described science as “thinking God’s thoughts after him.”

“Think about it. If we uncover a natural process you can just say your god did it but if we can’t that might be proof of supernatural god magic!”

Do you find that offensive condescending nastiness helps you win arguments? I’m just wondering, because that seems to be your modus operandi. It really is a distraction and speaks volumes about your level of maturity and general character (sadly, none to your credit).

To the point you are trying to raise, the issue is not whether God did it (though he may have). The issue is whether even in principle unguided natural forces are sufficient to account for the data. To that issue, you must not have read UB’s comment at 8 in the same thread, or at least you did not address what he said. Let me quote it for you:

. . . the organization of the first living cell on earth required a translation apparatus which must include a local independence from physical determinism in order for the system to function. To say that unguided material forces established such a local independence within a system is simply to assume that it can. This assumption is necessarily made against a backdrop of – not only zero corroborating evidence – but 100% universal experience to the contrary.
On what specific empirical grounds (i.e. something well established in logic, and/or something that stems from well-documented empirical principles) do we ignore universal evidence in favor of zero evidence? What type of qualities do we look for in a pending question in order to make such a determination? Is this justification established in physical law? If so, how, and if not, then why should anyone bend a knee to it?

UB asks several questions. Do you have an answer to any of them?

“Remember most people who call themselves christian accept the bible as metaphorical and accept that their god creates using natural processes (the entire catholic and anglican communion of 1.3 billion Christians.”

I am not sure what your point is here. Are you suggesting that all 1.3 billion Catholics and Anglicans subscribe to the theory that unguided natural forces can account for the information systems in living cells. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Catholic Michael Behe would probably disagree. In any case, the statement is a distraction, so much gorilla dust thrown into the air. The issue is “what is true.” The issue is not “what do lots of people believe even though it may not be true.”

“Science works, guys!”

Yes it does. No one here has suggested otherwise. I find something about your comment fascinating though. You claim to champion science, and you attempt to cloak your comment with the authority of science (“I work as a biochemist”). Yet, your comment does not contain a single scientific statement. What’s up with that? Pardon, Okfanriffic, your metaphysics is showing.

“Understanding origins and fundamentals has always proved productive and as such research into life’s origins is reasonable.”

Research into OOL issues is indeed reasonable. No argument here. Is imposing a prior metaphysical assumptions on that research reasonable? That is the question. How do you answer it?

“Think about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on!”

True, but completely irrelevant unless you are suggesting that OOL research has answered any of the important questions, in which case you are simply wrong.

“An important part of science is understanding the underlying processes.”

No argument here. And if the data point to a guiding intelligence as part of those processes should we avert our eyes and insist on pounding our metaphysical assumptions onto the data. Or should we accept the data on its own terms? I vote for “accept the data on its own terms.” How do you vote?

“I work as a biochemist and like most biochemists we are concerned with understanding biology so that we can combat disease.”

We here at UD are also concerned with understanding biology. If the data point to the conclusion that natural forces are sufficient to account for the data, we are perfectly happy to accept that conclusion. Example: No one here disputes that Darwinian processes are perfectly adequate to account for the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria. But, as UB eloquently write above, if the data point in a different direction we are happy to follow where the data lead instead of trying to pound our metaphysical prejudices onto the data.

So here’s the difference between you and us: We are more open-minded. Did your training as a biochemist lead you to be close-minded? If so, that’s a shame.

107 Replies to “Fisking a Biochemist’s Non-scientific Critique of ID

  1. 1
    Moose Dr says:

    This guy seems to have bought into the canard that IDers avoid the data for religious reasons. I dare to think that he is not looking honestly at the data for the same religious reasons. This is the theme my other favorite ID site: darwins-god.blogspot.ca — “How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters.”

    OOL is sooo not fitting the theory. De Novo genes sooo doesn’t fit the theory. As Sir Frederick Hoyle so well pointed out, ultra-conserved DNA sooo doesn’t fit the theory. I can go on.

    Okfanriffic is right when he says, “An important part of science is understanding the underlying processes.” If the theory that he filters all data through is wrong, he will never truly achieve this goal. That is why the darwin/ID question is so darned important!

  2. 2
    Dionisio says:

    Guys, y’all seem so much ahead on the cutting edge of scientific knowledge.
    Can someone please point to sources that provide a serious, accurate, reasonable, logical, understandable, detailed, complete, unambiguous, absolute, coherent, consistent, objective description of ALL the processes that take place during embryonic development?
    Please, also point to sources that provide a serious, accurate, reasonable logical, understandable, detailed, complete, unambiguous, absolute, coherent, consistent, objective description of how we got ALL that.
    Please, make sure the referred sources cover all current and future related discoveries.
    Thank you in advance.

  3. 3
    Joe says:

    OK computers are designed and understanding that they are designed does indeed help us understand how they function and how to use them.

    Understanding origins and fundamentals has always proved productive and as such research into life’s origins is reasonable.

    Absolutely. That is why trying to separate the OoL from its evolution is a fools errand. How life started has a direct bearing on how it evolved.

    We better understand Stonehenge because we have realized that its origins took the design route. And we would better understand living organisms once it is realized that living organisms also have a designed origin. But unfortunately people are denying the obvious for religious reasons.

    Remember most people who call themselves christian accept the bible as metaphorical and accept that their god creates using natural processes (the entire catholic and anglican communion of 1.3 billion christians)

    What? Evidence please. I went to catholic schools and no one ever said anything like that.

  4. 4
    PaV says:

    Okfanriffic wrote:

    hink about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on! Science works, guys! Understanding origins and fundamentals has always proved productive and as such research into life’s origins is reasonable.

    Researchers have used a “gene-centric” approach to cancer treatments for over forty years. This ‘approach’ is based on the neo-Darwinian understanding of how mutations and NS work upon the genome.

    Tell me, Okfanriffic, how’s that going on the cancer front? All they have for the most part is rat poison and radiation. Scientists in the middle of cancer studies say that they’ve probably wasted those forty years of study because cancer is something that happens at chromosomal level and probably involves epigenetics.

    Here we have a case of Darwinism leading science astray. By your very words, Okfanriffic, Darwinists DON’T UNDERSTAND “ORIGINS AND FUNDAMENTALS.” Are you ready to open your mind to the ID side of the argument?

    I bet not.

  5. 5
    AVS says:

    Hmm..something tells me you have no idea what you are talking about PaV. Not surprising seeing as you are a regular here at UD.

  6. 6
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    Hmm..something tells me you have no idea what you are talking about PaV. Not surprising seeing as you are a regular here at UD.

    Now there’s an irrefutable argument!

    Something tells me you have no idea what you are talking about AVS. Not surprising seeing as you are a regular here at UD.

  7. 7
    AVS says:

    I actually do know damn well what I am talking about thank you very much. And, consequently, that is why I do not come on here very often. It usually ends with me banging my head against the wall as I try to talk about biology to a bunch of stubborn, scientifically illiterate ignoramuses.

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    AVS:

    I actually do know damn well what I am talking about thank you very much. And, consequently, that is why I do not come on here very often. It usually ends with me banging my head against the wall as I try to talk about biology to a bunch of stubborn, scientifically illiterate ignoramuses.

    A biological expert are you? What is life?

    What distinguishes life from not-life?

  9. 9
    Mung says:

    AVS, the biological expert that he or she is, will next explain the cause of life. Or not.

  10. 10
    Moose Dr says:

    AVS, “Hmm..something tells me you have no idea what you are talking about PaV.” The problem with your wit is that it wasn’t followed up with data. A series of links to documentation refuting PaV’s claim might give your assertion some credibility.

  11. 11
    AVS says:

    Life is characterized by a separation of environment in and outside of the organism, metabolic activity, the ability to replicate and grow, and finally by the ability to adapt and evolve.

  12. 12
    AVS says:

    Good to know Moose doc. The fact that he thinks a cancer researcher would say they’ve “wasted” the last forty years, is alone enough for me to know he has no idea what he is talking about.

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Think about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on!

    LOL!

    “Quantum electrodynamics” had nothing to do with spawning computers except to limit their miniaturization due to quantum tunneling. An electronic computer simply charges and discharges semiconductors in controlled operations according to instructions.

    Most Christians do indeed take the Bible literally except where it specifically indicates otherwise. I do.

    The teachings, history, and wisdom for living are very direct. For example, what part of “Thou shall not commit adultery” is metaphorical? Archaeology has discovered many places, people, and things mentioned in the Bible. The Hittites, for example, were once considered “Biblical mythology.” When Jesus said, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me,” how can this possibly be interpreted metaphorically?

    Furthermore, God doesn’t simply use natural processes, God created them in the first place and sustains them! There’s no fundamental reason in Physics that the universe couldn’t blink out of existence at any time.

    Perhaps with a little more humility, Okfanriffic might have more success in biochemistry. The Bible indicates that nature is degrading over time and the observable genetic evidence seems to bear that out.

    -Q

  14. 14
    okfanriffic says:

    personal insults, that is so christian. i love you all but you failed to answer my point. Research into life’s origins IS reasonable. If it is successful we will understand biochemistry at a fundamental level. If it isn’t then it is evidence for your gods. That is not pseudoscience

  15. 15
    okfanriffic says:

    hey querius. QED gave us semiconducters. That is how computers work. look it up.

  16. 16
    Upright BiPed says:

    okfanrrific,

    Since the entire edifice of biology stems from the translation of recorded information (i.e. the original cell could not be organized without it) do you not agree that compiling an inventory of the necessary material conditions to translate information is a reasonable approach to origins research?

  17. 17
    okfanriffic says:

    upright biped, science has a history of explaining what was considered magic as natural processes. there is no thunder god and yahweh didn’t put the rainbow in the sky nor is it a bridge to valhalla. Research into life’s origins is not pseudoscience that is all i want you to understand. It might help if you realised “information” is a subjective term. Crystals (any ordered structure) contain “information” believe what you like but please don’t obstruct our research.

  18. 18
    Upright BiPed says:

    You failed to answer the question.

    The information in the cell is translated from a genetic medium into physical effects within the cell. Is it reasonable to compile an inventory of the material conditions required to translate information as a means of deepening our understanding origins issues?

  19. 19
    okfanriffic says:

    upright biped. What question did i fail to answer? Compiling material conditions is reasonable but it is not a means to deepen our understanding unless we can replicate it. that is why we do origins research.

  20. 20
    Upright BiPed says:

    upright biped. What question did i fail to answer?

    In the two posts I made in direct response to you, each contained exactly one question mark per post. I was unaware that I would be required to point out their significance.

    Compiling material conditions is reasonable but it is not a means to deepen our understanding

    What an interesting position to take: Compiling the material conditions required to translate information from a medium into a physical effect does not deepen our understanding of what was required to originate the translation of information from a medium into a physical effect. Wow.

    Is it possible that you have so much unresolved animus toward certain groups of people that in order to disagree with them you are prepared to say things that do not stand up to even a moment of scrutiny?

    (note the question mark)

    …unless we can replicate it.

    It is not entirely clear how this comment makes any sense. This is the practical equivalent of saying that we needn’t study a problem until we solve it.

    Again, your positions do not seem to be well formulated, they hardly seem to be rational at all.

  21. 21
    okfanriffic says:

    check out the faq’s on this website. they cannot find anyone to refute evolution by natural selection.Remember evolution is a fact. biological organisms have “changed over time” that’s evolution folks. The theory of evolution that you hate so much is simply an explanation of that fact and most (1.3 billion self identify a christians and accept evolution)

  22. 22
    okfanriffic says:

    upright biped Replicating the origins of life would mean that we completely understood it. We study a problem until we solve it.proof that we have solved it is when we can recreate it. Ok?

  23. 23
    Upright BiPed says:

    check out the faq’s on this website. they cannot find anyone to refute evolution by natural selection.Remember evolution is a fact. biological organisms have “changed over time” that’s evolution folks.

    okf, you have a simpleton’s conception of what the issues are. You reveal it in both the tone and particularly in the content of your comments. You are like one of those people who has repeated “righty tighty – lefty loosey” to themselves for their entire lives, and you’ve come upon your first reversed thread. You stand there chanting your correctness, wallowing in it with absolute certainty, as the situation positively escapes your grasp.

    If it’ll help you regain your composure, you need only realize that all of the ID proponents reading this thread, and a good portion of the ID critics as well, are watching you fail to grasp even the slightest end of ID’s position.

    Truly, you are a person who would be best served by speaking less and listening more. You needn’t be debilitated by such a sparse understanding of science’s foremost issues.

  24. 24
    Upright BiPed says:

    okf,

    On the outside chance that you could become curious about what the issues actually are, allow me to post a short text from a previous writing. I would encourage you to not merely jump to the conclusion that the observations are flawed – neither you nor anyone else can change the details, no more than we can change the fact that a fire requires a fuel source, or that gravity pulls us to the center of the earth. This is certainly not a request that you not think for yourself, only that you give yourself an ample opportunity to consider the details. Everything I say here is based on well-documented observations which are virtually uncontroversial. Nobel Prizes have been awarded to several persons along the path to making these observations. And if you should be so astute to ask yourself why you’ve never heard these things before, it is simply because they do not fit the reigning materialist ideology (i.e. righty-tighty) and are certainly not suited to the echo chamber of evolutionary politics.

    The onset of recorded information

    No matter which theory one follows regarding the Origin of Life, there is one thing that all observers can be certain of. Prior to the organization of the first living cell on earth, unique physical conditions had to arise to make that organization possible. These conditions are brought about by the presence of two sets of physical objects operating in a very special system. In order to organize the cell, a set of representations and a set of protocols must arise to bridge the (necessary) discontinuity between the medium of genetic information and its resulting effects. One set must encode the information and the other set must establish what the result of that encoding will be. These are the physical necessities of the system. But because the organization of the system must also preserve the discontinuity, a group of relationships are established that otherwise wouldn’t exist, producing effects which are not derivable from the material make-up of the system. These unique conditions are the inexorable mandate of translation (which were proposed in theory and confirmed by experiment). This system is something that the living cell shares with every other instance of translated information ever known to exist. It’s the first irreducibly complex organic system on earth, and from it, all other organic systems follow. Moreover, it is specifically not the product of Darwinian evolution – it’s the origin of life’s capacity to change and adapt over time. And as the first instance of specification on earth, it marks the rise of the genome, and the starting point of heredity.

    Not only must these representations and protocols arise within an inanimate environment, but the details of their construction must be simultaneously encoded in the very information that they make possible. Without these things, life on earth would simply not exist.

    Definitions:

    Representation – an arrangement of matter to evoke an effect within a system, where the arrangement is physico-chemically arbitrary to the effect it evokes.

    Protocol – an arrangement of matter to establish the otherwise non-existent relationship between a representation and its physical effect.

  25. 25
    Upright BiPed says:

    cheers…

  26. 26
    okfanriffic says:

    upright biped we are here. Either we are here because of natural processes or because of magic. Let’s try and find out which. We already know the bible and koran are not accurate so this is not a question about religion. It is simply interesting and it could be a productive area of research.

  27. 27
    okfanriffic says:

    upright biped we are here. Either we are here because of natural processes or because of magic. Let’s try and find out which. We already know the bible and koran are not accurate so this is not a question about religion. It is simply interesting and it could be a productive area of research.

  28. 28
    Upright BiPed says:

    Either we are here because of natural processes or because of magic.

    We are here either because of unguided material processes, or because of design operating within natural laws.

    Let’s try and find out which.

    We can start by taking into account what is demonstrated to be necessary, instead of ignoring it for personal ideologies.

    We already know the bible and koran are not accurate so this is not a question about religion.

    Correct, this is not about religion so there isn’t a need to condescend further. Moreover, since we recognize that unsupported appeals to unknown material processes are an inherently non-falsifiable and non-scientific trait of the reigning materialist ideology, such gross lapses in scientific discipline should be removed from peer review and all teaching materials, and the public should immediately be made aware of the actual state of scientific knowledge, recounting each of those lapses in discipline. (i.e two can play at this game).

    It is simply interesting and it could be a productive area of research.

    Yes, after the record is set straight to the public which has been willfully mislead, and the wholesale abuses of power have been purged from the sciences.

  29. 29
    Joe says:

    okfan:

    Either we are here because of natural processes or because of magic.

    LoL! It appears that your alleged “natural processes” ARE magic. And design doesn’t require any magic.

    Look no one can even produce a testable hypothesis for an unguided OoL- no models, no predictions, no science.

  30. 30
    okfanriffic says:

    check out nick lane. his work on chemiosmosis with sulfur as the electron acceptor has shown that there would have been enough gibbs energy to facilitate life. he also outlines plausible chemical pathways but who cares? Understanding life’s origins is interesting but it doesn’t prove (or disprove) your gods. you are all super special and yahweh/allah/krishna etc loves you and you can all laugh at the silly scientists from heaven which is where you will end up. 😉

  31. 31
    Joe says:

    okfan- you will accept anything that you thinks supports your tripe. And obviosly you don’t understand science.

  32. 32
    okfanriffic says:

    yes joe you are an imbecile but relax. your god loves you and that is all that matters or do you have something to say on the chemical basis of life?

  33. 33
    Joe says:

    okfan- you are an ignorant moron who obviously doesn’t have anything to say but thinks its raw spe3wage means something.

    Look no one can even produce a testable hypothesis for an unguided OoL- no models, no predictions, no science.

    Nick Lane doesn’t help you, loser.

  34. 34
    Joe says:

    Natural selection exists but it has never been observed to be the designer mimic is was claimed to be. Evolution happens but it appears to have severe limitations.

    And the alleged “theory” of evolution can’t even muster testable hypotheses.

  35. 35
    Barb says:

    Okanriffic writes,

    personal insults, that is so christian.

    AVS wrote that UD posters are scientifically illiterate ignoramuses. Is he Christian? No? Then you might want to spend some time actually reading who posted what before attributing wrong motives to people.

    science has a history of explaining what was considered magic as natural processes. there is no thunder god and yahweh didn’t put the rainbow in the sky nor is it a bridge to valhalla.

    Actually, the Bible describes many natural processes and many years before scientists figured them out. The writers of the Bible didn’t consider them magic, they considered them as proof of God’s existence.

    Remember evolution is a fact. biological organisms have “changed over time” that’s evolution folks.

    Biological organisms have changed over time, but there is absolutely no proof that land animals such as bears eventually morphed into whales and swam into the ocean. That’s also evolution. Evolution has evidence to be sure, but other scientific facts such as gravity and electromagnetism have far more.

    Either we are here because of natural processes or because of magic. Let’s try and find out which. We already know the bible and koran are not accurate so this is not a question about religion.

    You should try reading the Bible some time. You’d be surprised at how accurate it really is. But then again, your disdain for religion shows in every post you make, so it doesn’t really surprise me that you haven’t read a word of it.

    Understanding life’s origins is interesting but it doesn’t prove (or disprove) your gods. you are all super special and yahweh/allah/krishna etc loves you and you can all laugh at the silly scientists from heaven which is where you will end up.
    yes joe you are an imbecile but relax. your god loves you and that is all that matters or do you have something to say on the chemical basis of life?

    Personal insults, that is so atheist!
    Try harder next time.

  36. 36
    okfanriffic says:

    ok but nothing you ####wits say supports belief in magic. is there anyone out there who thinks that “then the lord god formed a man from the dust of the ground” etc Is that the origin of life?

  37. 37
    okfanriffic says:

    barb=smug

  38. 38
    NeilBJ says:

    Re: “god creates using natural processes”

    I will never understand what a writer means by that phrase. Even Dr. Ken Miller explains evolution by God working through natural laws.

    How does God use a natural law to effect a result? For me, using a natural law means altering how a natural law would otherwise “work” and that means the law is no longer natural. It has become a tool of an intelligent being.

    This is the story of the technological advance of man. He has learned how to use natural laws to build machines and power them. Left alone natural laws would do no such thing.

    And left alone, natural laws would not create and evolve life.

  39. 39
    Joe says:

    okfan- YOU are the ####wit whose position posits magic.

  40. 40
    Joe says:

    NeilBJ- Left alone there wouldn’t be any such laws. 😉

  41. 41
    Barb says:

    okfanriffic: “barb=smug”

    Here I was hoping you’d actually drop some science on me and show me where evolution comes into play. But instead you hide back under your bridge. Disappointing, really. I expected better from you.

  42. 42
    Joe says:

    Barb to okfan:

    Here I was hoping you’d actually drop some science on me and show me where evolution comes into play. But instead you hide back under your bridge. Disappointing, really. I expected better from you.

    RotFLMAO. Good one Barb.

  43. 43
    scordova says:

    QED gave us semiconducters

    That is errant.

    Quantum Mechanics may explain semi-conductors, but semi-conductors and electronic properties were discovered before QED was substantially developed.

    Example: Diode

    It was deployed in 1906, and development was before that. Einstein only published the paper on photo electric effect in 1905 where Einstein used the word “quanta”, and so QM wasn’t fully developed then, much less QED which was just beginning in 1947.

    Shockley’s transistor wasn’t completely understood even by Shockley. He tried to make a Junction Field Effect Transistor and ended up making a Bipolar Junction Transistor by accident and had some of his theory working backward. It was not really well understood until we expressed the idea of hole-flow/quasi particle flow.

    Much of solid state physics is explained outside of QED, although QED could be said to be an underlying theory, much of the development was independent of QED but plain old QM and trial an error in some cases.

    from wiki:

    In particle physics, quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the relativistic quantum field theory of electrodynamics. In essence, it describes how light and matter interact and is the first theory where full agreement between quantum mechanics and special relativity is achieved.
    ….
    A first indication of a possible way out was given by Hans Bethe. In 1947, while he was traveling by train to reach Schenectady from New York,[9] after giving a talk at the conference at Shelter Island on the subject, Bethe completed the first non-relativistic computation of the shift of the lines of the hydrogen atom as measured by Lamb and Retherford.[10] Despite the limitations of the computation, agreement was excellent. The idea was simply to attach infinities to corrections of mass and charge that were actually fixed to a finite value by experiments. In this way, the infinities get absorbed in those constants and yield a finite result in good agreement with experiments. This procedure was named renormalization.

    Here is the history of the transistor from wiki on Shockley:

    Bell Labs’ attorneys soon discovered Shockley’s field effect principle had been anticipated and devices based on it patented in 1930 by Julius Lilienfeld, who filed his MESFET-like patent in Canada on October 22, 1925.[13][14] Although the patent appeared “breakable” (it could not work) the patent attorneys based one of its four patent applications only on the Bardeen-Brattain point contact design. Three others (submitted first) covered the electrolyte-based transistors with Bardeen, Gibney and Brattain as the inventors. Shockley’s name was not on any of these patent applications. This angered Shockley, who thought his name should also be on the patents because the work was based on his field effect idea. He even made efforts to have the patent written only in his name, and told Bardeen and Brattain of his intentions.[15]

    The QED article didn’t describe QED’s inception until around 1947 with Hans Bethe, and even that wasn’t full blown since it was non-relativistic. So semiconductors arrived as early as 1906, 39 year’s before even the beginning so QED which finally got Feynman, Schwinger, and Tomanoga the Nobel Prize in 1965, 9 years AFTER Shockley got his for the transistor.

    Your characterization is errant.

  44. 44
    Barry Arrington says:

    UB @ 23:

    okf, you have a simpleton’s conception of what the issues are. You reveal it in both the tone and particularly in the content of your comments. You are like one of those people who has repeated “righty tighty – lefty loosey” to themselves for their entire lives, and you’ve come upon your first reversed thread. You stand there chanting your correctness, wallowing in it with absolute certainty, as the situation positively escapes your grasp.

    Okf for the rest of the thread continues to prove UB’s point. Okf, thank you for coming onto UD. Enemies like you demonstrating the vacuity that so often stands in for opposition to ID are enormously helpful. As Barb says, if you had some science to drop on us (particularly in answering UB’s questions – which you have steadfastly refused to address, much less answer), you would. Thank you for pointing out that you are a biochemist. Now that we know that, we know that when it comes to answering the questions posed by ID, at least person trained in biochemistry has – to use that wonderful Yiddish word – bupkis.

  45. 45
    Joe says:

    Sal, That happens quite often. Do something and THEN figure out why it did or is doing it.

  46. 46
    Barry Arrington says:

    BTW okf, when you are being an insufferably smug condescending ass and I point it out, it not an unchristian insult. It is a simple statement of fact. By pointing it out I was attempting to shame you into better conduct. That obviously failed. You appear to be quite shameless.

  47. 47
    okfanriffic says:

    thanks for the wiki update. So is it magic or nature.? If it is magic which magician is it? Allah, brahma or jahweh (or maybe odin pr lugh?)

  48. 48
    scordova says:

    So is it magic or nature.?

    Neither, it’s intelligence outside of nature. That’s at least a good circumstantial argument because nature works against evolution of life from dead chemicals, not for it. You as a biochemist should know that — we posed this question to the ID-haters Do dead dogs stay dead dogs? which is figuratively the problem of abiogenesis.

    So do dead dogs stay dead dogs, can Jonathan Wells’ Humpty Dumpty be put back together by nature, or better yet can Humpty Dumpty’s irreducibly complex ribosome emerge from a dead biotic soup without intelligence? What does your biochemistry tell you?

    Feel free to state for the students of science reading this.

    So what if creationists and IDists are wrong, we have less to lose than atheists if we’re wrong, and that is something Rosaria Butterfield realized.

    Feel free to state what the human soul gains if you’re right? In view of weighing evidence and payoffs, the ID hypothesis is a superior wager both in terms of science, technology and in terms of eternal life.

    You want to wager your soul on there being no God, no intelligent designer, no one to be accountable to on judgment day, no one is stopping you.

    But you might want to verify your belief that there is no need for a Creator based on your knowledge of biochemistry — you can start with ribosome evolution just as a first round.

  49. 49
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: Embryology survey. KF

    PS: When OKF can show us a case of blind chance and mechanical necessity, without intelligent direction or intervention, giving rise to 500+ bits of functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information, then we can see him as having something substantial to say. Meanwhile, we are perfectly within our inductive logic rights:

    (a) to insist that an explanatory causal factor for the unobserved remote past of origins be shown capable of actually causing the effect in question — the vera causa principle, and

    (b) noting that there are billions of observed cases of FSCO/I in the world, and in each and every instance we observe such as tracing to intelligent action (unsurprising given the needle in haystack search challenge).

    In short, gross extrapolation riddled with Lewontin’s a priori materialism multiplied by a smug contempt for those who do not buy into the shadow shows in today’s version of Plat’s cave do not answer to the problem.

    PPS: SC, a slight quibble: actually, in the first instance, what was discovered was a third class of transistor, the point-contact Ge device, they were trying to develop a FET, and afterwards the bipolar junction transistor was created; IIRC FETs were popularised later. The Transistor symbol is a stylisation, with the base block, the emitter point contact and the collector point contact . . . something they did not think to explain in my first classes in those topics; when I found that out on my own later, I felt like I had been robbed of an early, pivotal insight. And while I am at it the first LEDs (which, patently are solid state diodes . . . ) were made/discovered in about 1907, SiC orange IIRC. Valves date to tubes manifesting vacuum current phenomena late C19, and Lee De Forest’s breakthrough was c. 1904, where valves too exhibit linked phenomena, indeed Edison discovered and patented such. The photoemissive photoeffect contributed to Einstein’s miracle year, 1905. All of this, long before modern form quantum theory was developed. Where of course OKF is confusing matters of operational science with those of reconstruction of a remote, unobserved past of origins. Suffice to say from mid C19 on, key ideas of digital computers were on the table and by the 1940’s the first ones were on the ground. Initial steps in digital signal processing were about then too, PCM dates to 1939. By 1948 we had Shannon-Weaver. Then in 53 we saw that life forms firsted us, and from 57 on were decoding genetic codes. We now know that digital code using molecular nanotech of wondrous complexity lies in the heart of the cell. There is but one credible, empirically well warranted causal factor adequate to such, design. That is what I suspect underlies the dismissive bluffing we are seeing from OKF and others of like ilk.

  50. 50
    Axel says:

    ‘Think about quantum electrodynamics,that advance in understanding spawned all of electronics including the computers we are communicating on! Science works, guys!’

    Hilarious, Okf. Quantum electrodynamics would never have seen the light of day, had that truly historic, most seminal and most successful paradigm of quantum mechanics not been discovered by that great Christian physicist Max Planck; or, of course, in the absence of the relativity theorem of Einstein, who, a most zealous ID acolyte, could scarcely have been more fulsome in his description of he awe he felt in the presence of the words of ‘the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.

    You scientismificist dum-dums could spare yourself a lot of ink and mental exertion by simply chanting: ‘Einstein was an idiot! Einstein was an idiot!

    And you have the brass b*lls to presume to tell Christian scientists that science works! Come back and tell us how the non-locality of photons, and other paradoxes (in your lexicon: woo-woo, unicorns ‘n’ stuff) fits into your materialist world-view, will you? Planck would be helpless with laughter at your chutzpah.

  51. 51
    Axel says:

    Sorry. Perhaps that chant should be: ‘Einstein was an IDiot! Einstein was an IDiot!’

  52. 52
    AVS says:

    Is it possible that the constant influx of energy from the sun continuously provides a driving force for small, localized decreases in entropy? I imagine that over long time periods and with the huge amount of light striking the Earth at any given instant, this, along with any other favorable conditions present on Earth, can be a pretty significant driving force for the construction of the earliest living organisms.
    Any thoughts?

  53. 53
    kairosfocus says:

    SC: Every soup can sitting on a store shelf is a test of abiogenesis under conditions much more favourable than those of early life. KF

  54. 54
    Axel says:

    ‘As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.’ – Max Planck

    Make that:

    ‘Einstein and Planck were IDiots! Einstein and Planck were IDiots!’

  55. 55
    Axel says:

    The two giant pillars of modern science, who show up your materialist, ‘loony-toons’ edifice for the nonsense it is, as Samson brought down the roof of the Philistines’ temple on their heads (not speak of the 3000 on the roof).

  56. 56
    Axel says:

    ‘SC: Every soup can sitting on a store shelf is a test of abiogenesis under conditions much more favourable than those of early life.’ KF

    A classic, KF! But you can have your own facts, you know, as well as your own opinions. Isn’t that right, Okf?

  57. 57
    Dr JDD says:

    UD Editors: Welcome to the dialogue Dr. JDD! You address your post below to “KF.” From the context it appears you are addressing “okfanriffic” and using “KF” as shorthand for him. Unfortunately, this could cause some confusion for UD readers, because long-time UD contributor “kairosfocus” (who actually appears in this thread as well) often goes by KF. We wanted to point this out, because when we began reading your post it did not make any sense until we figured this out. Again, welcome!

    KF:
    Sadly arguments descend into insults. Clearly there will be no entertainment of reasoned arguments and your mind is made up about evolution, so allow me to examine your original post rather than aruge evolution/OOL with you:

    1) You introduce yourself as a scientist
    2) You define what “science” is in your view
    3) You re-iterate that science “works”
    4) You state that all science can simply be attributed to “G/god” or NOT and this is not “scientifically conflicting”

    Examine this a bit more.

    1) Stated to give impression of authority on the subject (you are a scientist, therefore you have validity to comment and be an authority on scientific matters)
    2) You assume that people here do not understand the basic premise of science
    3) You patronise and assume because of IDist’s views that they do not accept “science” as a modern day basic concept giving truth and knowledge (and thus assume that any ID is not “science”)
    4) You mis-understand the complete foundation of the ID movement.

    Further interrogate this:

    1) Many many people I would assume on UD and who write these articles, are in fact scientists no doubt at similar level or even higher than you. Does that mean their word is true? Of course not. But the point is being a scientist and trained in the (secular) ways of science and its methodology does not make you an authority automatically especially on all things scientific. For example, I have a Masters in Biochemistry, a PhD in Cell Biology, Post-doctoral work, numerous peer-reviewed publications, head up a group in a successful biotech organisation and I would never claim my view/opinion holds more weight than someone else who is more versed on genetics than myself. I can debate with them, I can interrogate their data and their interpretation of data, and I may even be right and they wrong, but I cannot automatically assume my opinion is more valid due to my training. Perhaps in my specific area versus others I have more authority, but this is even more emphasised by the fact you claim to be a Biochemist. Perhaps I would take your words more seriously had you said you were a geneticist or an evolutionary biologist. And it should also be noted that there are plenty of those (and other Nobel-winning scientists) who do not subscribe to naturalistic evolution. So are you saying you as a Biochemist know that “science works” so your view is more pertinant than a Nobel prize winner?

    2) As above, many people here I am sure are scientists, myself included. The patronising assumption is actually somewhat offensive.

    3) If a scientific theory has huge holes in it, cannot explain certain phenomenon, it must be rejected. If we provide evidence that for example, evolution could not have occurred (i.e. generation of life, macro-evolution etc) independently i.e. in a naturalistic manner (atheistic neo-Darwinism let us say), then we must reject such a theory and look for an alternative. Most people would accept that there are 2 possible explanations to OOL – 1. that it happened by accident constricted by the laws of nature in a self-fulfilling manner or 2. it had a designer. Therefore if 1. is shown to be highly unlikely or cannot explain certain actual observations/does not fit with laws of nature than the other option is 2. Just because we cannot describe or know what the designer is like currently with our scientific methodologies does not mean that a) it is not a designer (“god”) or b) it is unscientific to accept this theory. Therefore, if there are holes in naturalistic evolution that are too difficult to explain given current (or future) evidence/knowledge, ID is a viable theory for OOL, thus this is science.

    4) See point 3 and secondly why your assumption here is not true is because if naturalistic evolution is indeed correct, than you cannot or do not have to assign a “God/god” to this as it can occur in the absence of a designer therefore this goes against your statement that any findings ID’ers can just assign it to a “god”. The question that is of greater relevance is what if naturalistic evolution cannot be explained and comes across evidence that shows it is impossible to have occurred without a designer (which some argue, it has already)? Who or what does the atheistic evolution follower assign these findings to??

    Apologies to everyone else that my first post on UD is largely adding little to the further understanding of OOL etc!

    Regards,
    JD

  58. 58
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: My thoughts in response to Dr Sewell’s latest vid. Let’s just say I would consider ascribing the protein synthesis mechanism to blind watchmaker forces as being materially less plausible — save, to those ideologically committed to question-begging a priori materialism than ascribing a Merlin V12 engine to blind chance and mechanical necessity, and for much the same reason of the manifest FSCO/I in them. The old Spitfire and Mustang Fighter engines are materially less complex than the workings of the cell, which let us not ever forget is a von Neumann self-replicating machine in addition to its functionality. One that has in it far more complexity than an oil refinery complex as can be seen from the well known highly complex and functionally specific nodes and arcs pattern of biochem rxns here. KF

  59. 59
    Joe says:

    AVS when you have a way to test your pap please come back and tell us.

  60. 60
    Upright BiPed says:

    Is it possible that the constant influx of energy from the sun continuously provides a driving force for small, localized decreases in entropy? I imagine that over long time periods and with the huge amount of light striking the Earth

    AVS, is there some specific mechanism you’d like to propose? At a minimum, to organize the first living cell you’ll need a functional translation apparatus and a means to record form.

  61. 61
    AVS says:

    All I’m asking right now is whether or not you agree with the idea, and if not, then why. It’s a very basic idea right now and I was curious what you guys had to say about it. In its most basic form my argument is that without a sun, entropy would increase as per the 2nd law. However, with the sun’s energy input, is it possible to imagine local decreases in entropy becoming more favorable, driving chemical reactions forming slightly more complex biomolecules, etc?

  62. 62
    okfanriffic says:

    so what is it. magic or nature? did a god form man from dust or can life be explained by natural processes? is anyone out there brave enough to defend the biblical account of creation or do you just like to be amazed at how complex a cell is.

  63. 63
    Joe says:

    okfan- only ignorant babies think that design = magic, and here you are.

  64. 64
    Joe says:

    AVS- nature tends toward the simple, ie the line of least resistance. Speigleman’s monster goes against your claim- ie actual experiments refute you.

  65. 65
    rna says:

    scordova @ 48

    “… can Humpty Dumpty’s irreducibly complex ribosome emerge from a dead biotic soup without intelligence? What does your biochemistry tell you? …”

    I don’t know about Humpty Dumpty’s ribosome but biochemistry tells us that at least the E. coli ribosome is not irreducible complex. A number of its building blocks (ribosomal proteins) can be knocked out and the cells live on. In addition, Harry Noller showed a long time ago, that ribosomes almost completely devoid of ribosomal proteins is still able to catalyze peptide bond formation in a test tube.
    Since the late 60ies early 70ies it is also well known that ribosomal subunits from some organisms assemble spontaneously from a mixture of their isolated parts (= a dead biotic soup?) basically upon some stirring and waiting …

  66. 66
    vjtorley says:

    AVS,

    I would be happy to allow that with the sun’s energy as an input, local decreases in entropy would occur. But that’s not going to solve the origin-of-life problem for you. The law that creates the problem here is not the second law of thermodynamics; it’s the law of conservation of information. I suggest you have a look at Dembski and Marks’ paper, “Life’s Conservation Law: Why Darwinian Evolution Cannot Create Biological Information” at http://www.evoinfo.org/papers/ConsInfo_NoN.pdf. (The mathematical argumentation starts on p. 13.) There’s also a highly readable non-technical overview of the paper, written by Dembski, at http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63671.html .

    You claim that we at UD don’t know what we’re talking about. How do you respond to evolutionary biologist Dr. Eugene Koonin’s peer-reviewed article, “The Cosmological Model of Eternal Inflation and the Transition from Chance to Biological Evolution in the History of Life” (Biology Direct 2 (2007): 15, doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-15)? In his article, Dr. Koonin claims that the emergence of even a basic replication-translation system on the primordial Earth is such an astronomically unlikely event that we would need to postulate a vast number of universes, in which all possible scenarios are played out, in order to make its emergence likely. If an evolutionary biologist admits that abiogenesis on the primordial Earth would be a biochemical miracle, then why do you fault us for saying the same thing?

  67. 67
    okfanriffic says:

    so what is it? natural processes or god magic? if nature tends towards the simple why is there a solar system or a galaxy? they aren’t simple. nature tends to do what is thermodynamically possible. speigelman’s monster was reverse engineering that will not explain life. i still love you though.

  68. 68
    AVS says:

    Joe, feel free to explain how it refutes me. I don’t think it does. And in fact, I would argue that nature tends toward the more complex because it does not have a definite direction. It is intelligent, planned design that tends toward simple, a function is in mind, and the apparatus is designed to specifically carry out that function.

  69. 69
    Joe says:

    AVS- I said how it refutes you. Are you really that dishonest?

  70. 70
    AVS says:

    Slow down torley, all I did was a ask a simple question, which you seem to agree with. My point now is that with this constant huge input of energy of the sun, entropy decreases are inevitable. Is it not possible that local decreases in entropy can build upon each other, furthering a decrease in entropy in small steps, eventually producing macromolecules similar to those used by life today?

  71. 71
    okfanriffic says:

    so vjtorley has invented a law of conservation of information. information is subjective. any chemical process can be viewed as a transfer of information. so what? i’m still waiting for someone to admit their belief in magic. this is a religious website isn’t it or do you think the intelligence that designed humans is an alien? come on guys did your god form us from dust or is it chemistry and evolution?

  72. 72
  73. 73
    vjtorley says:

    rna,

    Allow me to quote from Casey Luskin’s online article, “Molecular Machines in the Cell” at http://www.discovery.org/a/14791 (June 11, 2010), written for the Discovery Institute:

    5. Ribosome: The ribosome is an “RNA machine”(27) that “involves more than 300 proteins and RNAs“(28) to form a complex where messenger RNA is translated into protein, thereby playing a crucial role in protein synthesis in the cell. Craig Venter, a leader in genomics and the Human Genome Project, has called the ribosome “an incredibly beautiful complex entity” which requires a “minimum for the ribosome about 53 proteins and 3 polynucleotides,” leading some evolutionist biologists to fear that it may be irreducibly complex.(29) [Emphases mine – VJT]

    References

    [27.] Thomas R. Cech, “Crawling Out of the RNA World,” Cell, Vol. 136:599-602 (February 20, 2009).

    [28.] Jonathan P Staley and John L Woolford, Jr, “Assembly of ribosomes and spliceosomes: complex ribonucleoprotein machines,” Current Opinion in Cell Biology, Vol. 21(1):109-118 (February, 2009).

    [29.] “Life: What A Concept!” (The Edge Foundation, 2008) at http://www.edge.org/documents/life/Life.pdf

    You might want to cite a report in Science Daily (March 12, 2012), showing some of the key steps by which the ribosome allegedly originated. (For the original paper, see Ajith Harish, Gustavo Caetano-Anolles. “Ribosomal History Reveals Origins of Modern Protein Synthesis.” PLoS ONE, 2012; 7(3): e32776. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032776.)

    However, the research actually exacerbates the problem, because it suggests that a large number of proteins were present in living things, right from the get-go: “according to a new analysis, even before the ribosome’s many working parts were recruited for protein synthesis, proteins also were on the scene and interacting with RNA.” Where did all these proteins come from?

    Speaking of RNA, you may be interested in reading a discussion hosted by Edge in 2008, entitled, “Life! What a Concept” (at http://www.edge.org/documents/life/Life.pdf), featuring scientists Freeman Dyson, Craig Venter, George Church, Dimitar Sasselov and Seth Lloyd, and Professor Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), professor emeritus of chemistry at New York University. In the course of the discussion, Professor Shapiro explained why he found the RNA world hypothesis incredible:

    I’m always running out of metaphors to try and explain what the difficulty is. But suppose you took Scrabble sets, or any word game sets, blocks with letters, containing every language on Earth, and you heap them together and you then took a scoop and you scooped into that heap, and you flung it out on the lawn there, and the letters fell into a line which contained the words “To be or not to be, that is the question,” that is roughly the odds of an RNA molecule, given no feedback — and there would be no feedback, because it wouldn’t be functional until it attained a certain length and could copy itself — appearing on the Earth.

    Hey, he’s one of your guys. If this is what he says, then why do you expect us to swallow your origin-of-life proposal?

  74. 74
    AVS says:

    Joe, the monster you have told me about was an RNA molecule capable of replication. It eventually produced RNA molecules of smaller and smaller size.
    This is the basis of your argument that nature tends toward the simple? Get real bud.

    And okfan, don’t bother with that one, they love to twist the word “information” and use it how they see fit.

  75. 75
    kairosfocus says:

    OKF:

    Pardon, but you are simply revealing lack of history of ideas context.

    You have been programmed to dismissively think in terms of natural vs supernatural, overlaid by an assumption of evolutionary materialism that boils down to question begging on steroids.

    But all along, c 360 BCE, Plato in The Laws Bk X was already aware that the dichotomy natural [= by chance and mechanical necessity] can be properly contrasted to the ART-ificial, or designed. Where, we may empirically, inductively study tested, demonstrably and needle in haystack analysis plausible signs of design.

    So, all you have managed to show us is that you are in this philosophical trap pointed out by Phil Johnson, in reply to Lewontin’s notorious Jan 1997 NYRB a priori materialism article:

    For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

    . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

    Until your suggested blind watchmaker mechanisms pass the vera causa test of empirically demonstrated causal capacity to create FSCO/I and especially digitally coded complex specifically functional info, you are simply begging questions.

    KF

  76. 76
    scordova says:

    so what is it? natural processes or god magic?

    Quantum Mechanics suggests it so since you indirectly brought the topic of Quantum Mechanics by referencing Quantum Electro Dynamics, here is the proof God did it from Quantum Mechanics as argued in the world’s leading science journal in 2005:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-designer/

    So there you go. Circumstantial evidence of a Designer from Quantum Mechanics. 🙂

  77. 77
    AVS says:

    Man, I love how convinced you are about your arguments Joe. It’s quite comical.

  78. 78
    okfanriffic says:

    Anybody willing to admit their belief in magic? Go on guys, defend the biblical story or are you all just atheists who think science is hard to understand. 😉

  79. 79
    vjtorley says:

    okfanriffic

    You write: “information is subjective.” Not so. The term “information” given a mathematically rigorous definition on page 13 of Dembski and Marks’ paper, which I cited above. You might have your own definition of information, but on the definition used by Dembski and Marks, it’s a mathematically conserved quantity, which means that you can’t posit an increase in the universe’s information over the course of time, without also positing a Being outside the universe, inputting that information. If, on the other hand, the information is in the universe from the get-go, then as possible universes go, it’s a very strange universe indeed, as the amount of information it contains is far in excess of what is required to produce life. The information-richness of the cosmos makes perfect sense, however, if the universe was designed in order to reveal the existence of its Maker to us.

  80. 80
    kairosfocus says:

    AVS: Are you prepared to show us that there is no significant, observable difference between text such as this sentence in English, and random gibberish such as fuihdr6tiuvcs6guig or a repetitive string such as sdsdsdsdsdsdsd? Failing that, it is apparent that it is you who are bending the concept of information into pretzels driven by question-begging ideology. You will also find yourself running cross grained to the concept of complex specified info pioneered by the likes of those redneck fundy creationist yahoos — NOT — Orgel and Wicken. Not to mention what is typically mentioned when we speak about the strings and files commonly used in information technology. And, FYI, Shannon info is a metric of average info carrying capacity in a symbol or string, specifically without reference to the functional specificity involved. KF

    PS, onlookers, you will find that the basic information concept being used here can be simply cited from Wiki via the glossary in the resources tab:

    Information — Wikipedia, with some reorganization, is apt: “ . . that which would be communicated by a message if it were sent from a sender to a receiver capable of understanding the message . . . . In terms of data, it can be defined as a collection of facts [i.e. as represented or sensed in some format] from which conclusions may be drawn [and on which decisions and actions may be taken].”

  81. 81
    vjtorley says:

    AVS,

    If it’s macromolecules that you’re after, then I’m happy to give you what you want. Sure, sunlight could create those. But a cell is more than a molecule, and DNA (or for that matter RNA) is no ordinary molecule.

    The genetic code is found in all living things. Have you ever seen sunlight creating a code? Now that would be a sight to see!

  82. 82
    bornagain77 says:

    Dr. Torley, you might find this a useful addition to your notes on ribosomes which you linked at 73

    Endoplasmic Reticulum: Scientists Image ‘Parking Garage’ Helix Structure in Protein-Making Factory – July 2013
    Excerpt: The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the protein-making factory within cells consisting of tightly stacked sheets of membrane studded with the molecules that make proteins. In a study published July 18th by Cell Press in the journal Cell, researchers have refined a new microscopy imaging method to visualize exactly how the ER sheets are stacked, revealing that the 3D structure of the sheets resembles a parking garage with helical ramps connecting the different levels. This structure allows for the dense packing of ER sheets, maximizing the amount of space available for protein synthesis within the small confines of a cell.
    “The geometry of the ER is so complex that its details have never been fully described, even now, 60 years after its discovery,” says study author Mark Terasaki of the University of Connecticut Health Center. “Our findings are likely to lead to new insights into the functioning of this important organelle.”,,,
    ,, this “parking garage” structure optimizes the dense packing of ER sheets and thus maximizes the number of protein-synthesizing molecules called ribosomes within the restricted space of a cell. When a cell needs to secrete more proteins, it can reduce the distances between sheets to pack even more membrane into the same space. Think of it as a parking garage that can add more levels as it gets full.,,,
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....130617.htm

  83. 83
    okfanriffic says:

    claude shannon defines information but it is still subjective. a crystal lattice contains information by any metric but it is still subjective. you are just the ass in assertion. admit it. you love jesus and you don’t want to live in a universe where you can’t go to heaven and see grandma and grandpa. i love you 😉

  84. 84
    seventrees says:

    Greetings.

    AVS at 68

    I would argue that nature tends toward the more complex because it does not have a definite direction.

    And here I thought that our universe will cease to exist. Isn’t entropy always increasing with time for the whole universe given that energy is been converted from one form to another everyday? I use universe in the sense of all matter and energy that exists.

    And yes, I know that you were talking about localized entropy decrease. But I am talking about the Earth and its surrounding.

  85. 85
    AVS says:

    You’re right, torley, DNA and RNA are certainly not ordinary molecules. Neither are proteins, phospholipids, or sugars. Yet these four biological macromolecules are simply larger conglomerates of very simple molecules. This is a central concept of biology; the building of more complex molecules from those that are more simple, and the acquisition of function from simple structural properties. The basis of my entire argument is that with a massive and constant source of energy, the early Earth was continually being pushed to a more ordered state, making the eventual formation of what we call life not only likely, but inevitable.

  86. 86
    rna says:

    vjtorley @ 73

    my point here:

    claim by scordova “the ribosome is irreducible complex” – experimental data: in E. coli the ribosomal proteins e.g. L15, L21, L24, L27, L29, L30, L34, S9, S15, S20 and S17 … can be knocked-out and the cells still live (see e.g. doi: 10.1016/j.jmb.2011.09.004). So, at least the coli ribosome is not irreducible complex. I know at about some similar results for yeast ribosomes.

    about the Luskin article you quote:

    most bacterial ribosomes contain 3 different RNAs and ~ 50 proteins, eukaryotic ribosomes contain normally 4 different RNAs and ~ 80 ribosomal proteins.
    So already the first line you quote from his paper is not totally accurate. In eukaryotes there are 200 additional proteins that speed up or regulate ribosome assembly insight the cell nucleus – so called assembly factors – that might explain how he arrived at the 300 number. Some of these are essential in some organisms, many others are not. However, as I said in my post in principle ribosomes can assembly spontaneously just from their building blocks in a test tube by mixing.
    cech, staley and woolford which he quotes know these facts by heart or even helped establish them.
    Why did luskin not state this accurately?

  87. 87
    Upright BiPed says:

    All I’m asking right now is whether or not you agree with the idea

    So the answer is “no”, you have no specific mechanisms to propose. Alternatively, I have made very specific statements in #24 and elsewhere, with definitions, which I am most certainly prepared to defend. Neither you nor okf have even attempted to respond to those statements. It is therefore not unreasonable to consider this conversation dead in the water. It appears to be little more than an opportunity for okf to vent his/her unresolved issues with religious interpretation. If this is supposed to be about science or empiricism, there is little to show for it from the ID critic’s side of argument.

  88. 88
    Querius says:

    DR JDD @ 57:
    Wow, beautifully characterized! Thanks for the great post—it’s a keeper!

    Also, thanks to scordova for beating me to the punch regarding okf’s profoundly ignorant attribution of computers to quantum electrodynamic theory, and subsequent vituperation. Your explanation was much more comprehensive than what I was going to post.

    Upright BiPed, I completely agree. And thanks also to insightful responses from kairosfocus, Barb, Joe, Barry, Neill, and others.

    As for okfanriffic, I’d say that the scientists and researchers that I’ve spoken with generally have an enthusiastic curiosity about what they don’t know and a certain humility about what they think they know.

    I don’t have any particular aversion or “hatred” toward Darwinism—I used to believe in it—but the data are looking less and less supportive of this scientific relic of the 19th century. It’s time we moved on.

    And then okfanriffic posted this:

    barb=smug

    LOL. Sorry, but does anyone else have a hard time believing that okfanriffic is a biochemist? 😉

    -Q

  89. 89
    AVS says:

    My argument, seven, is that local entropy decreases can build upon themselves to form more and more complex molecules. This is driven by the constant energy input from the sun, and any favorable conditions that could be found on early Earth.
    I am sort of arguing from the opposite end of what you are used to hearing. “Can energy input from outside a system drive the decrease in entropy that we see in the formation of life”

  90. 90
    AVS says:

    Take it easy Biped, I can’t just jump into any mechanisms with you guys without going through the basics, you guys just have too much of a misunderstanding on the topics. If you’d like to join in on the conversation I’m having with torley, go ahead. As for post 24, I’ve already said it is wise to avoid a conversation with you guys about “information” at all costs because you guys twist and bend the word to mean whatever you want. Exactly what ‘information’ is is way to subjective, and that is exactly why you guys cling to arguments about it so much.

  91. 91
    Joe says:

    Information was defined well before Shannon was born.

    AVS- we use information in the normally used way. Just because YOU are too ignorant to grasp tat fact proves that you are a moron on an agenda.

  92. 92
    Joe says:

    AVS- when you have supporting evidence for your claim come back and tell us.

  93. 93
    Joe says:

    AVS:

    Joe, the monster you have told me about was an RNA molecule capable of replication. It eventually produced RNA molecules of smaller and smaller size.
    This is the basis of your argument that nature tends toward the simple?

    Nope. It is just evidence that refutes your claim. That nature tends towards the more simple is an observation made by naturalists for centuries.

  94. 94
    Upright BiPed says:

    I am willing to defend my position with purely material definitions. Frankly, these things are not even controversial.

    I think this fact forms the actual basis of the reluctance on display here.

  95. 95
    AVS says:

    It was more of a thought experiment Joe, that would explain why the conversation went completely over your head.

  96. 96
    seventrees says:

    AVS, I typed:

    And yes, I know that you were talking about localized entropy decrease. But I am talking about the Earth and its surrounding.

    In other words, I understood your argument. Your argument

    I would argue that nature tends toward the more complex because it does not have a definite direction.

    was my issue. A localized decrease in entropy is a possibility, but with an increase with entropy to the surrounding. In other words, there is still a fixed direction which nature (the Universe) at least follows. Unless you only meant Nature = Earth.

    But I’ll not continue to quibble with that. It’s best you engage with UprightBiped’s question at 24 by answering if raw energy from sunlight and all favourable conditions on Earth will produce the system which he talks of.

  97. 97
    AVS says:

    Upright, I’m not even sure who you are talking to or what conversation you are talking about. I don’t know if you’ve noticed but there are numerous conversations going on here.

  98. 98
    Querius says:

    seventrees@84,

    Entropy can decrease locally in an open system under some conditions, but leaving my car parked in the sun will always leave me with cracked plastic in my dashboard. I’ll never get a new stereo regardless of how long my car sits in the sun.

    However, if someone sneaks a new stereo into my car, the probabilistic local decrease in entropy that’s offset by the increase in entropy due to solar radiation can be a convenient rationale for a professor, but trust me when I tell you that it won’t work on a suspicious policeman! 😉

    -Q

  99. 99
    AVS says:

    Yes, I was referring to “nature” as Earth, as the system I was referring to only included Earth.

  100. 100
    Upright BiPed says:

    cheers then…

  101. 101
    Joe says:

    Wrong again AVS- no one cares about your thought experiment because you don’t have the ability to think. All you can do is insult, spew bald assertions and innuendos.

    You are a fine example of an intellectual coward.

  102. 102
    seventrees says:

    Querius,

    If you noticed, he said “Nature has no definite direction”. I have a hard time swallowing that. The only possibility I see for him making such a claim is if he says Nature = Earth in this context.

    As to the rest of what you wrote, I have no disagreements there.

  103. 103
    AVS says:

    Good one queerius, unfortunately you have just demonstrated exactly what is wrong with the people here at UD. Your stereo analogy is comical, but in all respects it is an utterly terrible comparison to the topic at hand. What I have been talking about is a gradual process, building upon itself.

  104. 104
    AVS says:

    Thank you, that was lovely, Joe. see ya.

  105. 105
    Joe says:

    Goodbye dork

  106. 106
    Barry Arrington says:

    Warning AVS: Next time you drop the F Bomb you will be shown the door.

  107. 107
    Barry Arrington says:

    Comments Closed: Further comments on this subject should be posted in the new “Thank You Okfanriffic” post.

Comments are closed.