Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

More Inconvenient Truths with James Tour


Science 1, Evolution 0,  See more

Cornelius's blog currently has 230 comments for this OP. UD has 8. Indiana Effigy
of related note: Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) - video (2016) https://www.facebook.com/philip.cunningham.73/videos/vb.100000088262100/1136462999699965/?type=2&theater bornagain77
as to:
"Except that it assumes that the simplest a extant life form is as complex as the first life form. I am not aware of any scientists who thinks this is the case."
If a quote unquote "scientist" believes that the simplest extant life form today is more complex than the first life form on earth, then he does so in spite of the evidence not because of the evidence!
When did oxygenic photosynthesis evolve? - Roger Buick - 2008 Excerpt:,, U–Pb data from ca 3.8?Ga metasediments suggest that this metabolism could have arisen by the start of the geological record. Hence, the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved well before the atmosphere became permanently oxygenated seems well supported. http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1504/2731.long Life's history in iron - Nov. 7, 2014 Excerpt: A new study examines how Earth's oldest iron formations could have been formed before oxygenic photosynthesis played a role in oxidizing iron.,,, Microorganisms that photosynthesize in the absence of oxygen assimilate carbon by using iron oxide (Fe(II)) as an electron donor instead of water. While oxygenic photosynthesis produces oxygen in the atmosphere (in the form of dioxygen), anoxygenic photosynthesis adds an electron to Fe(II) to produce Fe(III). "In other words, they oxidize the iron," explains Pecoits. "This finding is very important because it implies that this metabolism was already active back in the early Archean (ca. 3.8 Byr-ago)." http://phys.org/news/2014-11-life-history-iron.html Evolutionary biology: Out of thin air John F. Allen & William Martin: The measure of the problem is here: “Oxygenetic photosynthesis involves about 100 proteins that are highly ordered within the photosynthetic membranes of the cell." http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7128/full/445610a.html Mycoplasma mycoides Just Destroyed Evolution “We’re Showing How Complex Life Is” - March 24, 2016 Excerpt: The origin of life problem can be divided into two broad categories: ground-up and top-down. In the ground-up approach, evolutionists try to figure out how the first life could have arisen spontaneously from an inorganic world. In spite of the evolutionist’s claims to the contrary, the century-long ground-up research program has utterly failed. That leaves the top-down approach. Here, evolutionists work with simple, unicellular life forms, carefully removing parts one at a time in their search for smaller, simpler life forms. If evolution is true, they should be able to reduce life to a very simple, basic form which could conceivably arise by chance somehow. This approach has been failing as well, as in recent years all the signs pointed to a minimal life form consisting of at least a few hundred genes—far beyond evolution’s meager resources of random change. Now, this latest research has upped the ante. It is just getting worse. A minimal organism consisting of 473 genes is many orders of magnitude beyond evolution’s capabilities. Simply put, the science contradicts the theory. What the science is telling us is that evolution is impossible, by any reasonable definition of that term. http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2016/03/mycoplasma-mycoides-just-destroyed.html To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012 Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,, The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,, ,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/to-model-the-simplest-microbe-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Nor does the quote unquote "scientist" have any evidence for the so called prebiotic chemistry that he supposedly believes in
"We get that evidence from looking at carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis. And it tells us that in Earth's oldest (sedimentary) rock, which dates at 3.80 billion years ago, we find an abundance for the carbon signature of living systems. Namely, that life prefers carbon 12. And so if you see a higher ratio of carbon 12 to carbon 13 that means that carbon has been processed by life. And it is that kind of evidence that tells us that life has been abundant on earth as far back as 3.80 billion years ago (when water was first present on earth).,,, And that same carbon 12 to carbon 13 analysis tells us that planet earth, over it entire 4.5662 billion year history has never had prebiotics. Prebiotics would have a higher ratio of carbon 13 to carbon 12. All the carbonaceous material, we see in the entire geological record of the earth, has the signature of being post-biotic not pre-biotic. Which means planet earth never had a primordial soup. And the origin of life on earth took place in a geological instant" (as soon as it was possible for life to exist on earth). - Hugh Ross - quote as stated at 40:10 mark Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video (40:10 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=UPvO2EkiLls#t=2410
BFast, no. It is not passing the buck. Evolutionary biologists deal with biology as we know it now. Vastly simpler or vastly more complex. But still DNA based with biochemistry that we can understand. It is not about OOL. OOL is a different field of study. Related, but different. Just as physics is related to chemistry. How is this different than ID claiming that the nature of the designer and the mechanisms used is beyond the study of ID? The only difference I see is that one of these fields of study welcomes and encourages study beyond its boundaries. The other is ID. Indiana Effigy
Indianna, "Except that it assumes that the simplest a extant life form is as complex as the first life form. I am not aware of any scientists who thinks this is the case." Um, you are right that no scientist thinks that the current simplest life form happened by chance -- not even James Tour. The problem that he has with the "well, life forms were simpler before this" position, is that nobody can provably describe what that "simpler" is like. Proceeded by simpler is simply the natural result of the application of the current theory. If naturalism is correct, then a simpler form must have existed. Naturalism is deemed correct, therefore simpler existed. Now, when I dialog with evolutionists they say that this is not a question for their science, it is a question for OOL researchers. I say bull! Evolution from something that chance could have come up with is in the scope of practice of the evolutionary scientists. They have been falling down on the job, and passing the buck to the other guy. bFast
To keep a current tally, Darwin's God 97. Arrington's UD 1 (3 if you include my two comments). Very telling. Indiana Effigy
WJM: "Great talk, lot of detailed examination of the true scope of problems the idea of unintelligent chemical abiogenesis faces." Except that it assumes that the simplest a extant life form is as complex as the first life form. I am not aware of any scientists who thinks this is the case. On another subject, I was surprised to see that this OP already has over 70 comments. Unfortunately, not here. Indiana Effigy
Great talk, lot of detailed examination of the true scope of problems the idea of unintelligent chemical abiogenesis faces. William J Murray

Leave a Reply