A simple case for intelligent design

[dfnj]

There is nothing intelligent about the design of my body!

 

[tas8831]

Your chirality stuff is not relevant to this specific point, that is why I haven't adress them

And the creationist's dishonesty rears its head.

'My chirality stuff' was a DIRECT response to you ranting and rambling thusly:

Whant an specific example?

In order to have life you need a long chain of left handed aminoacids (obviously you need much more than that, but let’s keep it simple) given that the ratio of left and right handed aminoacids tends to be 50/50 the vast majority of possible combinations would include at least some right handed aminoacid. And based on what we know to date, there is not a mechanism that would favor a pattern of just “left handed aminoacids” based on what we know nature favors a 50% 50% ratio.​

But sure, you claim that these are not relevant to that claim of yours:

Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces

Abstract
From synthetic drugs to biodegradable plastics to the origin of life, the chiral selection of molecules presents both daunting challenges and significant opportunities in materials science. Among the most promising, yet little explored, avenues for chiral molecular discrimination is adsorption on chiral crystalline surfaces — periodic environments that can select, concentrate and possibly even organize molecules into polymers and other macromolecular structures. Here we review experimental and theoretical approaches to chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces — research that is poised to open this new frontier in understanding and exploiting surface-molecule interactions.​

Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities, and the Origins of Life

Abstract
Crystalline surfaces of common rock-forming minerals are likely to have played several important roles in life’s geochemical origins. Transition metal sulfides and oxides promote a variety of organic reactions, including nitrogen reduction, hydroformylation, amination, and Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis. Fine-grained clay minerals and hydroxides facilitate lipid self-organization and condensation polymerization reactions, notably of RNA monomers. Surfaces of common rock-forming oxides, silicates, and carbonates select and concentrate specific amino acids, sugars, and other molecular species, while potentially enhancing their thermal stabilities. Chiral surfaces of these minerals also have been shown to separate left- and right-handed molecules. Thus, mineral surfaces may have contributed centrally to the linked prebiotic problems of containment and organization by promoting the transition from a dilute prebiotic “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.​

If the first living things 'evolved' at mineral surfaces such as those mentioned, then it stands to reason that a particular chirality would be favored.

...
Unusual nonterrestrialL-proteinogenic amino acid excesses in the TagishLake meteorite

Abstract–The distribution and isotopic and enantiomeric compositions of amino acids found in three distinct fragments of the Tagish Lake C2-type carbonaceous chondrite were investigated via liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection and time-of-flight mass spectrometry and gas chromatography isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Large l-enantiomeric excesses (lee43–59%) of the a-hydrogen aspartic and glutamic amino acids were measured in Tagish Lake, whereas alanine, anothera-hydrogen protein amino acid, wasfound to be nearly racemic (dl) using both techniques. Carbon isotope measurements of d- and l-aspartic acid and d- and l-alanine in Tagish Lake fall well outside of the terrestrial range and indicate that the measured aspartic acid enantioenrichment is indigenous to the meteorite. Alternate explanations for the l-excesses of aspartic acid such as interference from other compounds present in the sample, analytical biases, or terrestrial amino acid contamination were investigated and rejected. These results can be explained by differences in the solid–solution phase behavior of aspartic acid, which can form conglomerate enantiopure solids during crystallization, and alanine, which can only form racemic crystals. Amplification of a small initial l-enantiomer excess during aqueous alteration on the meteorite parent body could have led to the large l-enrichments observed for aspartic acid and other conglomerate amino acids in Tagish Lake. The detection of nonterrestrial l-proteinogenic amino acid excesses in the Tagish Lake meteorite provides support for the hypothesis that significant enantiomeric enrichments for some amino acids could form by abiotic processes prior to the emergence of life.​

As far as I am concerned, I (and others) have already exposed you as a run of the mill, underinformed, and largely ignorant creationist. That poly is indulging you is his prerogative, but I have better people to waste time on.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A point not made in any replies to me.

So you are ignoring my entire series of posts in favor of the one thing that, via your ignorance, you think you might be able to score a point.

Go for it.

I'm enjoying your usual flailing and failing.

He asked me how *I* identify design and which process I use for it, in context of the example of carved rocks.
I explained it to him and curiously, it went dead silent.

 

[tas8831]

He asked me how *I* identify design and which process I use for it, in context of the example of carved rocks.
I explained it to him and curiously, it went dead silent.

It is pretty clear that he has realized he is out of his depth and is just playing games. Many creationists reach this point and just disappear for a few weeks, hoping everyone will forget.
Not this one....

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You don't seem to understand.
Carving is a design technique. So when you identify signs of carving on an object, then that is evidence for design, because carving is a design technique. As opposed to for example erosion, which is a natural process.

Carving thus very much implies design. It is design / manufacturing / artificial manipulation of the rock.
So when you find a rock that's been carved / shows signs of carving, what does that tell you?
When you find a rock thats been eroded / shows signs of erosion, what does that tell you?

This is how I identify design: I look for signs of manufacturing / artificial manipulation.
The "function" and "purpose" of the object really aren't the most important thing. In many cases, they will even be irrelevant.



The same way we can tell someone was burned in the past when seeing the scars years later.

Because we understand the processes of erosion, carving and burning and thus know how it affects various objects. This understanding allows us to identify those objects that had that happen to them in the past.



Science.




I have no need for a fallacious filter that doesn't work.
The method I use seems quite reliable.

@leroy just wondering why you didn't reply to this post of mine. I thought it was finally getting interesting...

 

[leroy]

I disagree, since such happens all the time in statistical mechanics.



Yes, and that is *precisely* what abiogenesis research is trying to find: the natural mechanism for such a development.

Sure, and my point is that you are presuposing that such mechanism exists........ There are many things that chemical reactions can produce, but life from "none life" doesn't seem to be one of them,



For someone like you who" knows " with nearly 100% certainty that naturalism is true, then I see why you are so sure that such mechanism will ever be discovered.

But if you start with agnosticism.... " perhaps there is an intelligent designer that predates life, perhaps not"...... "we don't know"

I seems obvious that ID is a more probable cause for life than natural mechanisms,


Even a single homochiral chain of molecules seems hard to explain with naturalism, chance is likely to select a ratio of nearly 50% 50% of right and left handed molecules, and based on what we know about natural laws, they don't seem to be interested in creating homochiral chains.

Not to mention that the homochirality problem is just the tip of the iceberg, there are fundamental obstacles that prevent abiogenesis

 

[leroy]

@leroy just wondering why you didn't reply to this post of mine. I thought it was finally getting interesting...

Well if carving by definition means design then you are just making a circular argument.

The point is, what objective method would you use to detect none human design or none human carvings?

How do you know that a sharp and symmetrical knife-like object was design / carved and not the product of wind and erosion?

 

[leroy]

And the creationist's dishonesty rears its head.

'My chirality stuff.....

Yes, but besides your chirality stuff you made several other points, I simply wanted to focused on the first point that you made, before moving forward, is this so hard to understand? is that so bad?

Btw, just for the record, are you afirming that those papers solve the homochirality problem? Or is it an other example of "I don't afirm nor deny anything,"

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, and my point is that you are presuposing that such mechanism exists........ There are many things that chemical reactions can produce, but life from "none life" doesn't seem to be one of them,

On the contrary, none of the atoms or molecules making up your body is alive. Yet the combination is alive. That is making life from non-life.

For someone like you who" knows " with nearly 100% certainty that naturalism is true, then I see why you are so sure that such mechanism will ever be discovered.

But if you start with agnosticism.... " perhaps there is an intelligent designer that predates life, perhaps not"...... "we don't know"

I seems obvious that ID is a more probable cause for life than natural mechanisms,

Actually, it is clear to me that it is a much *less* probable cause and a much poorer explanation simply because of all the unknowns involved. We already know that life is a chemical process. Why introduce a non-chemical unknown into the process?

Even a single homochiral chain of molecules seems hard to explain with naturalism, chance is likely to select a ratio of nearly 50% 50% of right and left handed molecules, and based on what we know about natural laws, they don't seem to be interested in creating homochiral chains.

And yet we know that there are reactions that promote one chirality over another. Clays are one environment where such an asymmetry can be produced.

Not to mention that the homochirality problem is just the tip of the iceberg, there are fundamental obstacles that prevent abiogenesis

I'll agree it is a problem, but we already know of situations where it isn't as much of a problem. Why bring in an unknown process with no independent evidence for it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well if carving by definition means design then you are just making a circular argument.

No.

Let's explain again:

1. Erosion is a natural process.
2. carving is a design process

With me so far?

Both erosion and carving manipulates rocks in a certain specific way. We understand both processes, so we understand what kind of markings it leaves behind on rock.

Just like we understand the process of burning and how it leaves behind scorched material.

We can then take that knowledge when looking at objects and recognize such markings.
This is how we can tell if the thing we are looking at has been burned.
It's how we can tell if a rock was eroded or carved.

If we find markings of erosion, then we know the rock formation was produced by the natural process of erosion.

If we find markings of carving, then we know the rock formation was produced by the artificial of someone carving it out.


Please point out specifically what is so circular about this.

Note also how this method of identifying design, only depends on the actual properties of the object in question. One doesn't need to know anything about it's purpose or function a priori (or at all, in fact), like your method does.

The point is, what objective method would you use to detect none human design or none human carvings?

We can only go by the design methods that we know about.
Just like we can only go by the natural processes we know about.

If we wouldn't know anything about erosion, then we also wouldn't be able to recognise if a rock formation was eroded. Because you need to understand the process in order to understand and recognize the output of said process.

Why would design methods be any different?

How do you know that a sharp and symmetrical knife-like object was design / carved and not the product of wind and erosion?

By understanding the difference in physical markings that both carving and erosion leave behind.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well if carving by definition means design then you are just making a circular argument.

The point is, what objective method would you use to detect none human design or none human carvings?

How do you know that a sharp and symmetrical knife-like object was design / carved and not the product of wind and erosion?

From the perspective of a geologist who specialized in studying Neolithic carvings of jade and jade like stone carvings and their modern fakes.

There are two primary types of carving in the Neolithic and they are abrasion and flecking.

ALL the abraded artifacts have characteristic very fine abrasion uniform tool marks in all those made by humans. Actually by microscopic study it can be determined whether the ancient tool methods (harder stones like corundum) or modern abrasion or cutting tools are used made of steel. Even sea shells carved to make tools and jewelry have these characteristic abrasion marks and uniform carvings not found in nature.

Natural worn stones do not have these uniform fine marks often only viewed under magnification. I have samples of natural jade and jade like river stones (main source of Neolithic carvings), Neolithic carvings and fakes.

For flecking tools from mostly flint or obsidian is far too uniform and consistent, symmetrical and not found in nature. The oldest tool making from flint and obsidian are not symmetrical, but uniformly made in tool shapes with flected cutting edges and are found with other human artifacts.

Actually all the carvings by humans are uniform to the point they can be identified as to what culture carved them. Weapons are uniformly notched

I have published some of my results some time ago in Colored Stone magazine. Others have published similar research.

The uniform predicable nature of stone tools and jewelry are used to identify the cultures that mad them.

 

[Polymath257]

From the perspective of a geologist who specialized in studying Neolithic carvings of jade and jade like stone carvings and their modern fakes.

There are two primary types of carving in the Neolithic and they are abrasion and flecking.

ALL the abraded artifacts have characteristic very fine abrasion uniform tool marks in all those made by humans. Actually by microscopic study it can be determined whether the ancient tuul methods (harder stones like corundum or modern abrasion or cutting tools are used made of steel. Even sea shells carved to make tools and jewelry have these characteristic abrasion marks and uniform carvings not found in nature.

Natural worn stones do not have these uniform fine marks often only viewed under magnification. I have samples of natural jade and jade like river stones (main source of Neolithic carvings), Neolithic carvings and fakes.

For flecking tools from mostly flint or obsidian is far too uniform and consistent, symetrical and not found in nature. The oldest tool making from flint and obsidian are not symetrical, but uniformly made in tool shapes with flected cutting edges and are found with other human artifacts.

Actually all the carvings by humans are uniform to the point they can be identified as to what culture carved them. Weapons are uniformly notched

I have published some of my results some time ago in Colored Stone magazine. Others have published similar research.

The uniform predicable nature of stone tools and jewelry are used to identify the cultures that mad them.

One aspect of this that should be pointed out: it is often the unnatural *simplicity* that identifies an artifact as made by humans. Complexity is much more likely to be a natural phenomenon, unless there is some physical law making the symmetry a low energy state.

Which makes all the arguments from the complexity of the universe rather wrongly directed.

 

[paarsurrey]

A simple case for intelligent design

Yes, it is very simple, I understand, that G-d has endowed intelligence to us humans through the process of evolution set by Him. It is for us now to use this intelligence with wisdom so that humanity does not get ruined by all the lethal arsenal that is there. Right friends, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

There is nothing intelligent about the design of my body!

In spite of it one has intelligence, please? Doesn't one, please?
Right friend, please?

Regards

 

[exchemist]

A simple case for intelligent design

Yes, it is very simple, I understand, that G-d has endowed intelligence to us humans through the process of evolution set by Him. It is for us now to use this intelligence with wisdom so that humanity does not get ruined by all the lethal arsenal that is there. Right friends, please?

Regards

Yes, that is a good way for the religious believer to look at it: God works through the processes of nature that are set in train by his laws of nature. If you see it that way, you can accept science and still retain your belief.

 

[shunyadragon]

A simple case for intelligent design

Yes, it is very simple, I understand, that G-d has endowed intelligence to us humans through the process of evolution set by Him. It is for us now to use this intelligence with wisdom so that humanity does not get ruined by all the lethal arsenal that is there. Right friends, please?

Regards

This is not what Intelligent Design proposes.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yes, that is a good way for the religious believer to look at it: God works through the processes of nature that are set in train by his laws of nature. If you see it that way, you can accept science and still retain your belief.

exchemist wrote, " If you see it that way, you can accept science and still retain your belief."

Yes, I understand, there is no harm rather it is very appropriate to believe in the truthful Religion based on Word of G-d and the Science/Scientific Method that explore in the Nature- the Work of G-d both originated by our Merciful G-d, please. This way, I understand, we human must make our worldly life better and also the hereafter, please. Right friend, please?:

[2:202] وَ مِنۡہُمۡ مَّنۡ یَّقُوۡلُ رَبَّنَاۤ اٰتِنَا فِی الدُّنۡیَا حَسَنَۃً وَّ فِی الۡاٰخِرَۃِ حَسَنَۃً وَّ قِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ ﴿۲۰۲﴾
And of them there are some who say: ‘Our Lord, grant us good in this world as well as good in the world to come, and protect us from the torment of the Fire.’

Regards

 

[exchemist]

exchemist wrote, " If you see it that way, you can accept science and still retain your belief."

Yes, I understand, there is no harm rather it is very appropriate to believe in the truthful Religion based on Word of G-d and the Science/Scientific Method that explore in the Nature- the Work of G-d both originated by our Merciful G-d, please. This way, I understand, we human must make our worldly life better and also the hereafter, please. Right friend, please?:

[2:202] وَ مِنۡہُمۡ مَّنۡ یَّقُوۡلُ رَبَّنَاۤ اٰتِنَا فِی الدُّنۡیَا حَسَنَۃً وَّ فِی الۡاٰخِرَۃِ حَسَنَۃً وَّ قِنَا عَذَابَ النَّارِ ﴿۲۰۲﴾
And of them there are some who say: ‘Our Lord, grant us good in this world as well as good in the world to come, and protect us from the torment of the Fire.’

Regards

Fiy amaan-illah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A simple case for intelligent design

Yes, it is very simple, I understand, that G-d has endowed intelligence to us humans through the process of evolution set by Him. It is for us now to use this intelligence with wisdom so that humanity does not get ruined by all the lethal arsenal that is there. Right friends, please?

Regards

You really should not use the word "know" when you mean "believe". If a person knows something a person can defend one's claims. You appear to only have mere belief.

 

[exchemist]

You really should not use the word "know" when you mean "believe". If a person knows something a person can defend one's claims. You appear to only have mere belief.

Does the poster use the word "know"?