Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

My Proclivity for Inspiring Long UD Threads — Part Deux

Categories
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

At this writing I see that my post here has 122 responses, and that my post here has 81 responses.

After examining all the dialog one thing seems clear to me: The ID versus Darwinian-materialism question must inevitably invade and challenge the core of the human soul.

Don’t tell me that anyone doesn’t at least eventually ask the only substantive and meaningful questions: 1) Why am I here? 2) Where did I come from? 3) Is there any ultimate purpose or meaning in my life?

If Darwinism is true, the answers to these questions are obvious:

1) No reason.
2) Chemistry and chance, which did not have you in mind.
3) No. You are an ephemeral product of 2).

The problem is that Darwinism is obviously not true, and the scientific evidence mounts every day that its mechanisms are catastrophically inadequate as an explanation for what we observe.

The philosophical, theological, ethical, and existential ramifications of this debate cut to the core of the human soul, which is why it inspires so much passion.

Comments
Hmmm -- 107 responses so far at this writing. This always seems to happen, even if almost all the comments are off-topic. I rescind my initial thesis in favor of some kind of cosmic accident: Given an infinity of random universes, a disproportional number of comments will be inspired by my insipid posts.GilDodgen
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Warehuff @ 99
My point is that you haven’t shown any place where an intelligence is needed.
I apologize if I didn’t make myself clear. The point where inanimate chemistry cannot create an abstraction of itself and instantiate that abstraction into matter – that is the point where an agent is required.
I’m certainly not saying that life began without information, the information would have been in the arrangement of the atoms of whatever the FLT was.
Your proposition removes the information carriers (DNA and RNA) from the FLT; that is why your suggestion removes information from the FLT. No particular arrangement of atoms has information by virtue of being a particular arrangement of atoms. If we look into an atom of carbon under a scope we do not find particles of information hidden among its constituent parts. You are making a category error. Information is an abstraction ABOUT something of interest; it is not IN something of interest. Once you truly allow yourself to figure this out, then you will begin to discern why the issue is what it is. Inside DNA we find information - recorded information that we can read – and that information is ABOUT the structure and processes of the organism. Tha inanimate chemistry did not put it there, because it did not have it to give.
I AM saying that no intelligence is needed to arrange those atoms.
Given that you’ve not been able thus far to grasp the issue at hand, I would hold off on making unsubstantiated proclamations – particularly when those proclamations run in direct opposition to 100% of the observable evidence from all human observation (science) since the very beginning of time.
The FTL would have been small enough to form spontaneously.
This comment is simply silly. The size of the organism has nothing to do with it. There is nothing in physical evidence that says “if it just gets small enough, it will pop into existence”. THINK before you SPEAK. It may actually be best to remain silent and listen for a while.
I’m using “intelligence” to mean “conscious thinker” or “human like consciousness or better” or just “intelligent designer”.
You are now simply assuming your conclusions. You have done so without providing any evidence that it is true, and without addressing the intractable evidence that it’s false. This is hardly an act befitting the age of enlightenment, wouldn’t you agree? Really… No, really. Slow down. Be still. Think this through: Can you provide any evidence whatsoever that suggest your conclusion is true? Can you provide a serious rebuttal to the evidence that says it’s false? If you can do neither of these, then on what grounds do you favor your position? Can you at least provide an answer to that? - - - - - - - - - - - Regarding Gpuccio, “Unless he’s got some good bonafides”. He has the best of bonafides. He is open-minded, trained, curious (and a gentleman).Upright BiPed
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Thanks for the links kairosfocusBerceuse
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
StephenB,
King, of course, allowed it to happen.
What do you mean by that? Is he an atheist?Berceuse
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
F/N: Spitzer video response. List of article responses to Hawking. John Lennox is classic:
"Contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe," he said, adding that laws do not create anything in and of themselves. What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine. That is a confusion of category. The laws of physics can explain how the jet engine works, but someone had to build the thing, put in the fuel and start it up. The jet could not have been created without the laws of physics on their own - but the task of development and creation needed the genius of Whittle as its agent."
GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
---"Berceuse: His argument didn’t make sense to me either. Do you have a link?" It's pretty much all over the internet. Just Google his name with something like God not needed or the universe can create itself out of nothing and you will get plenty of sites. His co-author was on the Larry King show with Robert Spitzer. When Spitzer started correcting his logical errors, his adversary simply talked over him and drowned him out with a non-stop filibuster . King, of course, allowed it to happen.StephenB
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Warehuff: Without metabolism and self-replication, there is no cell based life worth the name. For reasons connected to the nature of the cell as a dynamic, self-replicating system. (And, BTW, that is the ONLY kind of life we have empirical evidence to support. No metaphysically speculative just so stories hiding in a scientific lab coat please.) Thus, we need a metabolically functional entity that is simultaneously a Von Neumann-type replicator. That requirement is not going to be simple. Here is my summary on what that requires [cf basic ref here]:
(i) an underlying storable code to record the required information to create not only (a) the primary functional machine [[here, a Turing-type “universal computer”] but also (b) the self-replicating facility; and, that (c) can express step by step finite procedures for using the facility; (ii) a coded blueprint/tape record of such specifications and (explicit or implicit) instructions, together with (iii) a tape reader [[called “the constructor” by von Neumann] that reads and interprets the coded specifications and associated instructions; thus controlling: (iv) position-arm implementing machines with “tool tips” controlled by the tape reader and used to carry out the action-steps for the specified replication (including replication of the constructor itself); backed up by (v) either: (1) a pre-existing reservoir of required parts and energy sources, or (2) associated “metabolic” machines carrying out activities that as a part of their function, can provide required specific materials/parts and forms of energy for the replication facility, by using the generic resources in the surrounding environment.
That sort of organisation is not going to come easy, and it is going to be well beyond the 1,000 bits [128 bytes] of functional info that marks a search threshold that exhausts the potential of our observed universe. I comfortably infer that the observed reality of this sort of system in the heart of cell based life is a strong sign that it was produced through purposefully and intelligently directed contingency. AKA, design. Indeed, the evidence is that his overwhelmingly compelling conclusion is only rejected by imposition of a priori materialism in ideologised scientific and educational institutions. Absent such ideological imposition, evolutionary materialism would collapse at once. And, Merkle of Xerox Parc has some interesting things to say: ___________________ >> We can view a ribosome as a degenerate case of [[a Drexler] assembler [[i.e. a molecular scale von Neumann-style replicator]. The ribosome is present in essentially all living systems . . . It is programmable, in the sense that it reads input from a strand of messenger RNA (mRNA) which encodes the protein to be built. Its "positional device" can grasp and hold an amino acid in a fixed position (more accurately, the mRNA in the ribosome selects a specific transfer RNA, which in its turn was bound to a specific amino acid by a specific enzyme). The one operation available in the "well defined set of chemical reactions" is the ability to make a peptide bond [[NB: This works by successively “nudging” the amino acid-armed tip of the codon- matched tRNA in the ribosome's A site to couple to the amino acid tip of the preceding tRNA (now in the P site) and ratcheting the mRNA forward; thus elongating the protein's amino acid chain step by step] . . . . [[T]he ribosome functions correctly only in a specific kind of environment. There must be energy provided in the form of ATP; there must be information provided in the form of strands of mRNA; there must be compounds such as amino acids; etc. etc. If the ribosome is removed from this environment it ceases to function. [[Self Replicating Systems and Molecular Manufacturing, Xerox PARC, 1992. (Parentheses, emphases and links added. Notice as well how the concept of functionally specific complex information naturally emerges from Merkle's discussion.)]>> __________________ In short, the point is understood, in circles where it counts. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
StephenB,
Stephen Hawking, one of the most recognized authorties in physics, recently advanced the illogical and nonsensical argument that universes can create themselves out of nothing. Fortunately, Robert Spitzer and a number of other experts in the field of metaphysics refuted his egregious error.
I wasn't aware of this, but I'd be interested in seeing it. His argument didn't make sense to me either. Do you have a link?Berceuse
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
09:28 AM
9
09
28
AM
PDT
Carrots UNITE!!!Upright BiPed
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
09:18 AM
9
09
18
AM
PDT
Carrot liberation front!kairosfocus
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
09:15 AM
9
09
15
AM
PDT
Warehuff at 89: Dear fellow, my impression was that he’s saying you’re a pompous ass. This is so obvious to everyone reading this thread (except you) that he felt comfortable allowing your pomposity to speak for itself. I must say, though, that you’ve outdone yourself with your response. Nice of you to reiterate so there could be absolutely no doubt. Why not go out in the middle of the street and shout YES I AM!!! Mom won’t let you?allanius
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
---warehuff to HouseStreetRoom: "I don’t follow you. Are you saying that you always prefer the opinion of a layman writing on an obscure blog to three professional scientists writing about their field of expertise in a major scientific publication? If so, could you tell me why?" This may come as a big surprise to you, but there are people who can assess the validity of an argument independent of the so-called authority of the arguer. Stephen Hawking, one of the most recognized authorties in physics, recently advanced the illogical and nonsensical argument that universes can create themselves out of nothing. Fortunately, Robert Spitzer and a number of other experts in the field of metaphysics refuted his egregious error. I heard of one "expert" scientist in Australia who insists that vegetables can feel pain. I gather, then, that since he is an expert, a specialist, and presumably writes in journals, that you accept his proposition and believe that you are subjecting a carrot to cruel and unusual punishmenet each time you eat one.StephenB
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
gpuccio, if it is any comfort, I rather value your opinion on matters as I find them well thought out and well supported by the state of the art of the actual evidence. In fact if truth be told, it is warehuff's opinions that I have extreme trouble placing any value on since most of the time I find that they are not well thought out, nor supported by the peer review he supposedly leans so heavily on, but are instead just gut reactions of his atheistic philosophy.bornagain77
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
warehuff: Some comments on what you say: 1) I am perfectly free to express mu opinions about any scientific paper, on this blog or elsewhere, just as anybody else can do. 2) My opinion is usually motivated and detailed (except, sometimes, for mere problems of time resources). Anybpdy can read my opinions and evaluated them for what they are. In no case my opinions should be taken as a statement from authority. I have no authority, except the credibility of what I say, which everyone must evaluate for himself. 3) On the contrary, darwinists here do often use supposed authority as an argument: that paper says so and so, it is published on a peer reviewed journal, the authors are eminent biologists, and so on. 4) I have absolutely nothing against eminent biologists. I respect and admire them for their work. Bu I never take their statements as necessarily credible (I never do that in science, with nobody). 5) So, if eminent biologists state something, they have to convince me that what they are saying is reasonable and credible, otherwise I feel free not to be convinced, I feel free to write that in this blog, and to explain why. 6) You can stick to your concepts of authority, if you like, or you can just take part in the discussion expressing your ideas, and if possible motivating them. I will certainly not refute them just because somebody else, eminent or not, says differently. I will take the confrontation with you, and only with you, for your ideas. 7) Biology, like many other sciences, has theories of different importance and differently supported by facts. Yarus's theory about the biochemical origin of the code is not, as far as I know, an universally shared point of view, but rather a marginal position. And anyway, I have read his paper, and it has not convinced me at all. The facts he brings as support to his theory are interesting, but IMO can be explained in many other ways. Some aspects of the paper feel rather incomplete, but I have not dealt with those aspects in detail, because frankly it is not a big priority for me. 8) IMO, all the theories for OOL before LUCA are fairy tales, because they are based on very extreme (and absolutely unlikely) assumptions which have no support from observed facts. This is my opinion, and I stick to it. And I am available to discuss it. I appreciate those who try to build theories about that point, but I don't believe their theories. For my view of science, they are not even true scientific theories, but at present they can be better described as fairy tales. That is not necessarily a negative connotation: I like fairy tales, they are often very good. But they are not science. 9) I stick to my statement that, at present, what cane before LUCA is complete mystery. I stick to my statement that the only thing we can be sure of is that design had a very important part in it. 10) As far as we know, LUCA is the first living thing of which we can reasonably infer the existence. Whether others believe so or differently, is others' problem. I am deeply convinced that my statement is true, and am available to discuss it. And it is certainly true that most biologists now believe that LUCA was rather complex.gpuccio
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT
warehuff, here we go again,,, You keep saying that material processes CAN generate functional information yet you have yet to actually prove that material processes can generate any functional information whatsoever,,, The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel - Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009 To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut: physicodynamics alone cannot organize itself into formally functional systems requiring algorithmic optimization, computational halting, and circuit integration." A single exception of non trivial, unaided spontaneous optimization of formal function by truly natural process would falsify this null hypothesis. http://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/pdf Can We Falsify Any Of The Following Null Hypothesis (For Information Generation) 1) Mathematical Logic 2) Algorithmic Optimization 3) Cybernetic Programming 4) Computational Halting 5) Integrated Circuits 6) Organization (e.g. homeostatic optimization far from equilibrium) 7) Material Symbol Systems (e.g. genetics) 8) Any Goal Oriented bona fide system 9) Language 10) Formal function of any kind 11) Utilitarian work http://mdpi.com/1422-0067/10/1/247/agbornagain77
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
04:51 AM
4
04
51
AM
PDT
frost: "Excuse me? Can you find a quote for me of an IDist or Creationist saying the first living thing was a complex MODERN cell?" I meant as complex AS a modern cell.warehuff
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Warehuff you state: "BA77, the Last Universal Common Ancestor was not the First Living Thing." Warehuff,,,PROVE IT!!! The "simplest" life currently found on the earth, the parasitic Mycoplasmal, has between a 0.56-1.38 megabase genome which results in drastically reduced biosynthetic capabilities and explains their dependence on a host. Yet even with this 'reduced complexity' we find that even the 'simplest' life on earth exceeds man's ability to produce such complexity in his computer programs or in his machines: Three Subsets of Sequence Complexity and Their Relevance to Biopolymeric Information - David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors - Theoretical Biology & Medical Modelling, Vol. 2, 11 August 2005, page 8 "No man-made program comes close to the technical brilliance of even Mycoplasmal genetic algorithms. Mycoplasmas are the simplest known organism with the smallest known genome, to date. How was its genome and other living organisms' genomes programmed?" http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1742-4682-2-29.pdf Mycoplasma Genitalium - The "Simplest" Life On Earth - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012738 First-Ever Blueprint of 'Minimal Cell' Is More Complex Than Expected - Nov. 2009 Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae's transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation. "At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected," http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091126173027.htm Simplest Microbes More Complex than Thought - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: PhysOrg reported that a species of Mycoplasma,, “The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought.” Many molecules were found to have multiple functions: for instance, some enzymes could catalyze unrelated reactions, and some proteins were involved in multiple protein complexes." http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm#20091229a On top of the fact that we now know the genetic code of the simplest organism ever found on Earth is a highly advanced 'logic' code, which far surpasses man's ability to devise as such, we also know for a fact no operation of logic ever performed by a computer will ever increase the algorithmic code inherent in a computer's program, i.e. Bill Gates will never use random number generators and selection software to write more highly advanced computer codes: "... no operation performed by a computer can create new information." Douglas G. Robertson, "Algorithmic Information Theory, Free Will and the Turing Test," Complexity, Vol.3, #3 Jan/Feb 1999, pp. 25-34. This is also shown to be the case for the infamous 'evolutionary algorithms' which modify/refine information in a computer within preset parameters: LIFE’S CONSERVATION LAW - William Dembski - Robert Marks - Pg. 13 Excerpt: Simulations such as Dawkins’s WEASEL, Adami’s AVIDA, Ray’s Tierra, and Schneider’s ev appear to support Darwinian evolution, but only for lack of clear accounting practices that track the information smuggled into them.,,, Information does not magically materialize. It can be created by intelligence or it can be shunted around by natural forces. But natural forces, and Darwinian processes in particular, do not create information. Active information enables us to see why this is the case. (In these computer simulations) http://evoinfo.org/publications/lifes-conservation-law/ Bernoulli's Principle of Insufficient Reason and Conservation of Information in Computer Search (COI) - William A. Dembski - Robert J. Marks II - Dec. 2009 Excerpt: COI puts to rest the inflated claims for the information generating power of evolutionary simulations such as Avida and ev.,,, References to “geographical structure[s],” “link structure[s],” search space “clustering,” and smooth surfaces conducive to “hill climbing” reinforce rather than refute the quasi-teleological conclusion that the success of evolutionary search depends solely on active information from prior knowledge. This suggests that in biology, as in computing, there is no free lunch. http://evoinfo.org/publications/bernoullis-principle-of-insufficient-reason/ Thus evolution is soundly defeated at even the most basic level of what we now know for Functional Information generation, specifically it is shown no sequence of events, in any foundational logic known to man, can ever generate complex functional information, though it may modestly refine suboptimal information to a preset/preprogrammed goal. Warehuff, the fossil record won't help you either since the most ancient bacterium fossils we have demonstrate 'extreme conservation of morphology' to bacteria we find today, shoot warehuff you can't even point to a single instance of 'vertical evolution, that would pass 'the fitness test' Is Antibiotic Resistance evidence for evolution? - 'The Fitness Test' - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995248 etc.. etc... etc ... Thus warehuff please tell me exactly why I should accept your 'belief' that the first life on earth was much simpler than the simplest life we find today especially since I can find no empirical support for that position whatsoever other than the neo-Darwinists blind faith that it must be so?? It simply does not follow warehuff!!!bornagain77
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
04:45 AM
4
04
45
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed @ 78: My point is that you haven't shown any place where an intelligence is needed. I'm certainly not saying that life began without information, the information would have been in the arrangement of the atoms of whatever the FLT was. I AM saying that no intelligence is needed to arrange those atoms. The FTL would have been small enough to form spontaneously. I'm using "intelligence" to mean "conscious thinker" or "human like consciousness or better" or just "intelligent designer". What ad hominem directed towards gpuccio? I wrote what you're probably referring to in response to @71 where gpuccio dismisses Yarus et al with, "I have already commented on Yarus’ theory that a biochemical reason is behind the code. It is a theory. A very vague theory. IMO, a fairy tale theory." What are his qualifications? Where was he trained? What publications has he written for and how was he received by other professionals? Why should anybody take his opinion over theirs? Why should anybody believe his claim that three professional scientists are publishing fairy tales and a major scientific magazine is printing them? Unless he's got some good bonafides, I would say that the ad hominem went from gpuccio ---> Yarus et al and their publisher.warehuff
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Warehuff, You write: "As I said, only creationists and ID theorists believe that the First Living Thing was a complex modern cell." Excuse me? Can you find a quote for me of an IDist or Creationist saying the first living thing was a complex MODERN cell? You consistently resort to nonsense to supplement you lack of argument. The fist living thing whatever it was was quite complex and scientists have yet to find any demonstrable explanation of how it could have come to be. Even the origin of the first RNA replications is a mystery. This critical perspective IS the true LOGICAL position (supported by the reality of the evidence and the current state of modern science) that more prominent IDists and Creationists actually hold. What you write however is just a stupid straw man. These days I expect no more.Frost122585
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
03:56 AM
3
03
56
AM
PDT
HouseStreetRoom @ 77: Quoting me: "'I really don’t see how the opinions of three professional scientists writing about their field of expertise in what scordova would call a very prestegious science magazine can possibly match up against the opinion of gpuccio writing at Uncommon Descent.'” Geez man. I’m glad I don’t have this mentality." I don't follow you. Are you saying that you always prefer the opinion of a layman writing on an obscure blog to three professional scientists writing about their field of expertise in a major scientific publication? If so, could you tell me why?warehuff
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Clive @ 84: "Darwinists believe that the first living things were cells, just as complex as modern cells." BA77 @ 75: "Was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? – Oct. 2009 Excerpt: 'There is no doubt that the progenitor of all life on Earth, the common ancestor, possessed DNA, RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code, ribosomes (the protein-building factories), ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP. The detailed mechanisms for reading off DNA and converting genes into proteins were also in place. In short, then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell.'" BA77, the Last Universal Common Ancestor was not the First Living Thing. Whatever the FLT was, it had to develop all of the characteristics of modern cells before it could become the LUCA. Here's what scientists really say about the First Living Thing: TalkOrigins @ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html "4. Gradual build-up of complexity Let us assume the plausible scenario that either RNA was directly synthesized, see above, so that out of a large pool of random RNAs a self-replicating RNA molecule could arise, or that such synthesis was accomplished by a precursor genetic/catalytic system (possibly on the surface of minerals, cf. Orgel 2004). Since fatty acids could have been available in the environment (Hanczyc et al. 2003, Orgel 2004), a primitive fatty acid membrane could have surrounded the first self-replicating RNA molecules (due to their molecular properties, fatty acids can form vesicles spontaneously); this would not have allowed passage of the RNA polymers so that they would have stayed together, but would have let the much smaller nucleotides through, fed in from spontaneous prebiotic synthesis or from a precursor genetic/catalytic system. Such a membrane would have had different characteristics of semi-permeability than modern lipid membranes, where a lot of molecule transfer is regulated through protein channels." One or a few simple molecules surrounded by a primitive fatty acid membrane. If the molecule was RNA and 75 bases long, that would be 150 bits of information plus whatever info was in the fatty acid membrane. Googling smallest genome brings up Carsonella ruddi with 160,000 basepairs in its DNA, but this cell lives inside an insect cell and probably couldn't survive on its own. Mycoplasma genitalium seems to be the simplest known free living cell and it has about a half million basepairs in its DNA. That's about a megabit of DNA information plus whatever information is encoded in the cell wall and other parts of M. genitalium, which is probably a lot. That's tens of thousands of times more complex that the First Living Thing that actual scientists postulate. First Living Thing, Last Universal Common Ancestor, Simplest Modern Cell. Three different things. As I said, only creationists and ID theorists believe that the First Living Thing was a complex modern cell. If anybody has a quote or citation for a scientist who believes the First Living Thing was a Complex Modern Cell, please post it here. If nobody can provide such a quote or citation, then nobody should ever say that "Darwinists believe that the first living things were cells, just as complex as modern cells." again, right?warehuff
September 22, 2010
September
09
Sep
22
22
2010
03:38 AM
3
03
38
AM
PDT
correction,, COI; Dembski, Marks;bornagain77
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
04:35 PM
4
04
35
PM
PDT
I don't know gpuccio, I think we can say a lot more with confidence than neo-Darwinists can say. As I reflected yesterday: We know of no instances of material processes ever generating ANY functional information whatsoever (COI; Dembski, Roberts; Null hypothesis; Abel), Yet we know that intelligence can and does routinely generate more functional information than can reasonably be expected for the entire materialistic processes of the universe over the entire history of the universe (Durston; Meyer), but this next part is the kicker, we now know that the foundation of this universe is not material but is in fact 'mental' (Henry; Planck): In the following article, John Hopkins Physics Professor Richard Conn Henry is quite blunt as to what quantum mechanics reveals to us about the 'primary cause' of our 3D reality: Alain Aspect and Anton Zeilinger by Richard Conn Henry - Physics Professor - John Hopkins University Excerpt: Why do people cling with such ferocity to belief in a mind-independent reality? It is surely because if there is no such reality, then ultimately (as far as we can know) mind alone exists. And if mind is not a product of real matter, but rather is the creator of the "illusion" of material reality (which has, in fact, despite the materialists, been known to be the case, since the discovery of quantum mechanics in 1925), then a theistic view of our existence becomes the only rational alternative to solipsism (solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist). (Dr. Henry's referenced experiment and paper - “An experimental test of non-local realism” by S. Gröblacher et. al., Nature 446, 871, April 2007 - “To be or not to be local” by Alain Aspect, Nature 446, 866, April 2007 (personally I feel the word "illusion" was a bit too strong from Dr. Henry to describe material reality and would myself have opted for his saying something a little more subtle like; "material reality is a "secondary reality" that is dependent on the primary reality of God's mind" to exist. Then again I'm not a professor of physics at a major university as Dr. Henry is.) http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/aspect.html The Mental Universe - Richard Conn Henry - Professor of Physics John Hopkins University Excerpt: The only reality is mind and observations, but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things.,,, Physicists shy away from the truth because the truth is so alien to everyday physics. A common way to evade the mental universe is to invoke "decoherence" - the notion that "the physical environment" is sufficient to create reality, independent of the human mind. Yet the idea that any irreversible act of amplification is necessary to collapse the wave function is known to be wrong: in "Renninger-type" experiments, the wave function is collapsed simply by your human mind seeing nothing. The universe is entirely mental,,,, The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy. http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/The.mental.universe.pdf Thus gpuccio I expect that we should as IDists, from the state of how the evidence now sits, have extremely more confidence in our 'speculations' for origination of the massive amounts of functional information required to explain life, than the materialist has any right to any confidence in his 'speculations' about the same.bornagain77
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT
BA: I do believe that life started complex. All the theories about primordial soup, RNA world and similar have really no credibility at all. No person with sense would ever believe that LUCA or whatever the first cell was originated from inorganic matter in a relatively short time (even if we generously allowed a couple of hundreds million years). But I think I can accept that the scenario of OOL is still completely speculative, even from the point of view of ID. First life was obviously designed, but I am not sure we can say much more than that.gpuccio
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
warehuff,
Creationists and ID Theorists are also the only people I know of who think that the first living things were as complex as simple modern cells. No scientist I have ever heard of believes anything like this.
Darwinists believe that the first living things were cells, just as complex as modern cells.Clive Hayden
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
wareguff,
I am in letting you know that declaring the genetic code to be a frozen accident is a big point against ID. If the code is accidental, then we’re back to nothing but electromagnetic fields and we have no need whatsoever for a designer.
I am not certain I am following you here warehuff. Crick was on your side, and he coined the term. Koonin and Wolf are on your side as well. So are (virtually) all the others. Since I cannot be blamed if they continue to use that term in the peer-reviewed research...then what's your point? Certainly you don't think just because they are reduced to hand-waving at the evidence then it actually must be a "frozen accident" in reality, do you?
On the other hand, if you allow that the code is remarkably efficient and arranged so that the most common errors either don’t change the amino acid selected or select an amino acid that more or less duplicates the specified amino acid when it’s incorporated into a protein, [THEN] the scientists can say the code is the result of evolution
"Then" ? Then scientists can say ? Based upon what? Because an elaborate information system is being used to create complex function - and does it well - those attributes by themselves are enough to suggest the system evolved by means of random variation and selection? Whoa! No other evidence is needed? Evolution doesn't have to address the details of the observation? It doesn't even have to show that it's capable of creating any of specifics within the system? Wow. You hear people say that a "theory which explains everything, explains nothing" and you provide a sparkling example of that expression.
Of course, there are a couple of places where the genetic code could do an even better job of error correcting (the frozen accidents referred to), so you have to explain how the Intelligent Designer isn’t totally intelligent, but you’ve still got a better case than the frozen accidents where no designer is needed, whether that designer is evolution or an intelligence.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think you were trying to make a theological argument. "A God wouldn't do it this way" I do however recognize the code you think is lacking has remained unchanged and in effect for 4.5 billion years and has lead to every marvel of the natural world we see on this planet. We hit an 8 by 20 mile-wide asteroid with a 1800lbs tincan 200,000,000 miles from earth all because A, G, T, and C were still whizzin along doing their job after 4,500,000,000 years. Perhaps you'd like to offer your heredity up to science as a thankless testbed for the improvements you suggest? - - - - - - - In any case, I do hope you'll return and school me on how metabolism is accomplished without the information to organize it. Bring your cites. I like to read.Upright BiPed
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
12:55 PM
12
12
55
PM
PDT
---leadme.org: "As a Christian and a Darwinian, I see no reason why Darwinism has anything to say about the ultimate meaning of life." To say that we arrived here by accident [Darwinism] is to say something about the meaning of life and to militate against the opposite teaching found in the Bible: "I knew you before I formed you in your mother's womb." ---"Mostly, I look around and see that precious few serious scientists (and this includes Christian scientists such as Ken Miller, Francis Collins, Denis Alexander, etc.) have given ID much notice, other than to speak against it, so I tend to interpret that as strong inferential evidence against ID." Typically, the men that you mentioned, and many like them, simply do not understand the formulation that they are criticizing. To test this proposition, simply provide a citation of what appears to be a substantive criticism, and, in most cases, someone here will quickly be able to show you what it is that the critic doesn't understand.StephenB
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT
warehuff,
Creationists and ID Theorists are also the only people I know of who think that the first living things were as complex as simple modern cells. No scientist I have ever heard of believes anything like this.
Living things are complex. That is the truth. The simplest, most insignificant, smallest, least complex life form on the planet is more complex than anything imaginable. Sorry if thats an impediment to your ideology. The fact that you must ignore that reality becuase you know it exist as such an impediment...is really...not that interesting. Neither is your authoritarianism.Upright BiPed
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT
gpuccio, I like this following video of Dr. Henry Schaefer, who is considered one of the top chemists in the world today. He states, in a no holds barred fashion, that after all his research into the origin of life 'problem', for what would be the simplest first step of a self-replicating molecule in any evolutionary scenario, He firmly believes God created life on earth. On The Origin Of Life And God - Henry F. Schaefer, III PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4018204 As well, Dean Kenyon, who was/is a leading Origin Of Life researcher as well as a college textbook author on the subject, admitted after years of extensive research: "We have not the slightest chance for the chemical evolutionary origin of even the simplest of cells".bornagain77
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
gpuccio you state: "I would definitely say that LUCA was not simple. What came before, is still mystery…" Actually gpuccio, as far as pre-biotic activity is concerned before photosynthetic life appeared, there is no evidence anything of a simpler pre-biotic nature ever existed om earth before life burst onto the scene. Thus the 'mysteriousness' of what happed before LUCA is now only irreconcilably mysterious if you are dogmatically committed to the materialistic framework: further notes: First and foremost, we now have concrete evidence for photosynthetic life suddenly appearing on earth, as soon as water appeared on the earth, in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth. The Sudden Appearance Of Photosynthetic Life On Earth - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4262918 Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012696 Life - Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4287513 The evidence scientists have discovered in the geologic record is stunning in its support of the anthropic hypothesis. The oldest sedimentary rocks on earth, known to science, originated underwater (and thus in relatively cool environs) 3.86 billion years ago. Those sediments, which are exposed at Isua in southwestern Greenland, also contain the earliest chemical evidence (fingerprint) of 'photosynthetic' life [Nov. 7, 1996, Nature]. This evidence had been fought by materialists since it is totally contrary to their evolutionary theory. Yet, Danish scientists were able to bring forth another line of geological evidence to substantiate the primary line of geological evidence for photo-synthetic life in the earth’s earliest sedimentary rocks. U-rich Archaean sea-floor sediments from Greenland - indications of +3700 Ma oxygenic photosynthesis (2003) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004E&PSL.217..237R it is also commonly, and erroneously, presumed in many grade school textbooks that life slowly arose in a primordial ocean of pre-biotic soup. Yet there are no chemical signatures in the geologic record indicating that a ocean of this pre-biotic soup ever existed. In fact, as stated earlier, the evidence indicates that complex photosynthetic life appeared on earth as soon as water appeared on earth with no chemical signature whatsoever of prebiotic activity. The Primordial Soup Myth: Excerpt: "Accordingly, Abelson(1966), Hull(1960), Sillen(1965), and many others have criticized the hypothesis that the primitive ocean, unlike the contemporary ocean, was a "thick soup" containing all of the micromolecules required for the next stage of molecular evolution. The concept of a primitive "thick soup" or "primordial broth" is one of the most persistent ideas at the same time that is most strongly contraindicated by thermodynamic reasoning and by lack of experimental support." - Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose on page 37 in Molecular Evolution and the Origin of Life. http://theory-of-evolution.net/chap11/primordial-soup-myth.php New Research Rejects 80-Year Theory of 'Primordial Soup' as the Origin of Life - Feb. 2010 "Despite bioenergetic and thermodynamic failings the 80-year-old concept of primordial soup remains central to mainstream thinking on the origin of life, But soup has no capacity for producing the energy vital for life." William Martin, an evolutionary biologist http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100202101245.htm Moreover, water is considered a 'universal solvent' which is a very thermodynamic obeying and thus origin of life defying fact. Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis - Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D. Excerpt: The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of prebiological evolution. There are many different problems confronted by any proposal. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favored in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favors depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment. A thermodynamic analysis of a mixture of protein and amino acids in an ocean containing a 1 molar solution of each amino acid (100,000,000 times higher concentration than we inferred to be present in the prebiological ocean) indicates the concentration of a protein containing just 100 peptide bonds (101 amino acids) at equilibrium would be 10^-338 molar. Just to make this number meaningful, our universe may have a volume somewhere in the neighborhood of 10^85 liters. At 10^-338 molar, we would need an ocean with a volume equal to 10^229 universes (100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) just to find a single molecule of any protein with 100 peptide bonds. So we must look elsewhere for a mechanism to produce polymers. It will not happen in the ocean. http://origins.swau.edu/papers/life/chadwick/default.html Professor Arthur E. Wilder-Smith "Any amounts of polypeptide which might be formed will be broken down into their initial components (amino acids) by the excess of water. The ocean is thus practically the last place on this or any other planet where the proteins of life could be formed spontaneously from amino acids. Yet nearly all text-books of biology teach this nonsense to support evolutionary theory and spontaneous biogenesis ... Has materialistic Neo-Darwinian philosophy overwhelmed us to such an extent that we forget or overlook the well-known facts of science and of chemistry in order to support this philosophy? ... Without exception all Miller's amino acids are completely unsuitable for any type of spontaneous biogenesis. And the same applies to all and any randomly formed substances and amino acids which form racemates. This statement is categorical and absolute and cannot be affected by special conditions." http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony3.php Sea Salt only adds to this thermodynamic problem: ...even at concentrations seven times weaker than in today’s oceans. The ingredients of sea salt are very effective at dismembering membranes and preventing RNA units (monomers) from forming polymers any longer than two links (dimers). Creation Evolution News - Sept. 2002 The following article and videos have a fairly good overview of the major problems facing any naturalistic Origin Of Life scenario: On the Origin of Life - The Insurmountable Problems Of Chemistry - Charles Thaxton PhD. - 1 hour video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ye3oDDAxeEbornagain77
September 21, 2010
September
09
Sep
21
21
2010
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5

Leave a Reply