A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

I didn't claim they *prove* abiogenesis. But that sn't what you asked for. You asked for self-organization that would be *relevant* to abiogenesis. And I think that is undeniable in what I gave.



What problem? That of self-organization? That seems to be supported here, doesn't it?



And we know that proteins do, in fact, fold in precise manners.


ou asked for relevant evidence that this *could* happen. I gave that.

Ok ok granted, there is some evidence for abiogenesis . All you have to do is lower your standards.

Would you argue that there is conclusive evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so justify your asertion, why are my questions improper? Why is my question analogous to:..... "Have you quit beating your wife yet? Please answer yes or not."

I have explained that to you many times over. And even gave you a specific example. Demanding "Yes/No" answers often accompany loaded questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so why aren't my 2 premises testable? .

For example it could be the case that further scientific discoveries show that primitive life didnt have the atribute of specified complexity.

That would falsify ID.


Where is my failure?

You can't even define your terms properly, how do you expect people to test them? Try avoiding circular reasoning in your definitions Did you forget how your "specified information" failed? Even a snowflake could be considered "specified" with one of your attempts at definitions and we know those form without the influence of any deity.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok ok granted, there is some evidence for abiogenesis . All you have to do is lower your standards.

Would you argue that there is conclusive evidence?

No, I would not. The evidence is suggestive, but we do not know the complete mechanism. Nobody disputes that.

But we also know that many of the objections that have been made have turned out not to be valid. It was once thought that amino acids couldn't form without life. We know they can. it was once claimed that there could not be spontaneous organization. We know it is possible now. It was once objected that the protein-nucleic acid relationship was irreducibly complex. We now know that RNA can catalyze many biologically relevant reactions, meaning proteins are not strictly required.

Are there issues that have not been resolved? Yes, definitely. But it is remarkable that many proposed obstacles have not turned out to be so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is interesting. I find myself wondering why anthracite has this semi-metallic lustre.

Normally, one would associate that with the presence of the free-flowing "sea" of electrons one has in the conduction band of a metal, which is induced to move in sympathy with the electric vector of incoming EM radiation and thus cause reflection. But is not obvious why this should occur in anthracite, containing, as you point out it does, a substantial proportion of hydrogen atoms. I've had a quick look on the web for an explanation of the metallic appearance but can't find anything.

Perhaps I'm thinking of this the wrong way round and should be comparing it instead to the shiny appearance of basalt. Is anthracite a glass, e.g. does it exhibit conchoidal fracture?

I have no real clue myself. Anthracite is a metamorphic version of coal. It has not undergone melting, but it has been placed under high heat and pressure. After a short search it appears that the heat levels to form anthracite are rather low topping out at 250 C. As coal gets more and more heated and compressed it gets more and more like graphite chemically and structurally:

Coal Structure and Composition

And I was wrong about graphite. Natural graphite at least does have a metallic luster as well:

EDIT: Rats some of the images did not post. hit the "Reply" button and you can see them.

 

[Jose Fly]

You just repeating the same crap, over and over again.

Exactly.

 

[Bear Wild]

Sorry I have poor reasire comprehension.

So in your view which is the main mechanism that accounts for the complexity of life? "1" or "2"? Or you can simply say both are viable candidates, or perhaps none (maybe there is some other mechanism)

The answer is clearly a combination of 1 and 2 both of which are natural processes. I also identified that mate selection during reproduction has a conscious element.

Asking that there maybe there is some other mechanism is like saying could lightning occur from a process other than ones we are familiar with. Can you say that all lightening strikes are all time had the same process. Could an intelligent designer be causing lightening strikes at times or all of the time but we cannot identify the designer through our current scientific means. The answer is of course yes. Thor and his hammer is responsible for Lightning. Since Thor is a god and has powers beyond mankind maybe he creates lightning. Just as probable as an intelligent designer manipulating all of the genetics of all of the cells of life.

 

[exchemist]

I have no real clue myself. Anthracite is a metamorphic version of coal. It has not undergone melting, but it has been placed under high heat and pressure. After a short search it appears that the heat levels to form anthracite are rather low topping out at 250 C. As coal gets more and more heated and compressed it gets more and more like graphite chemically and structurally:



Coal Structure and Composition

And I was wrong about graphite. Natural graphite at least does have a metallic luster as well:



EDIT: Rats some of the images did not post. hit the "Reply" button and you can see them.

Thanks. Yes knew it was metamorphosed at low temp and on its way to graphite. Cooking it will drive off the volatiles and various light hydrocarbons and leave something that is mostly fused aromatic rings. We get the same with oil in "cokers". I'm just intrigued by the electronic structure, in view of the sheen. Oh well, I'll keep an eye out and may find an answer some time.

But we digress from the thread topic......

 

[Milton Platt]

Science harmonizes well with the Bible.

Hardly

 

[BilliardsBall]

I am NOT putting up a smokescreen. These are real animals that are showing the transitional stages between land and water based life. They show that stages you seem to think are impossible are, in reality, quite possible and even common.

Take a transition animal, show how it acquired prey on the land, not on the sea, or vice versa, without starving.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Of course they do. That is what the theory of evolution says as well. "Change of kinds" is a creationist strawman.

You can then explain how change of kinds/families occurred from root ancestor(s)?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But X does not birth Y. That is the point.

X births X+δX, where δX is a small change in X such that other systems do not need to change immediately to accommodate it. (If they did, the organism would not be reproductively successful and would not have descendants carrying the change on, obviously.) And then, after a lapse of time, you may get a small change δr in the respiratory system r or whatever. And so on by small degrees, with changes in various systems and features of the organism that are either environmental advantages or environmentally neutral. (Neutral changes may be quite important, as they may become advantages later.)

It is particularly silly piece of creationist misrepresentation to pretend that evolutionary change takes place in huge jumps, so that multiple changes are required, simultaneously, to keep the organism viable.

Take any one system, like acquiring prey on the land, not on the sea, or vice versa. Explain how the creature didn't starve?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Since genesis and the flood are a mythological creation story and mythological renewal of the life on earth designed to teach rather that absolute fact then it does not matter about any of the days. Myth in religion is important and includes creation stories. They are designed to teach relationships and morals. Creating absolute accounts of history degrades the myth in a way because you lose sight of what it is truly trying to say. Creations myths such as Sky Woman of North America are very valuable in teaching relationships to the earth, morals and values. I would suspect most people accepting this creation story do not believe that the muskrat brought up the actual mud to create North America. Despite this lack of absolute truth the creation story transmits valuable teaching to those of that culture. Genesis can do the same for those who follow that tradition as well as the flood. Trying to make it the true story of the world loses the point of the myth.

Can you explain how you know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are myth?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hardly

Curious, do you ever offer facts, or just general rhetorical statements? "Hardly" would hardly win a formal (or informal!) debate!

 

[exchemist]

Take any one system, like acquiring prey on the land, not on the sea, or vice versa. Explain how the creature didn't starve?

Otters catch fish.

 

[Polymath257]

Take a transition animal, show how it acquired prey on the land, not on the sea, or vice versa, without starving.

Look at any penguin, otter, or sea lion. How do they do it?

/E: Note that bears are land animals that catch fish perfectly well. This really isn't a difficult thing to figure out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Take a transition animal, show how it acquired prey on the land, not on the sea, or vice versa, without starving.

This is a rather vague demand. All species are transitional. We know that they were successful since they left behind fossil evidence. Can you be more specific?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You can then explain how change of kinds/families occurred from root ancestor(s)?

Yes, by constant evolution over hundreds of millions of years. When a speciation event occurs, and we see those all of the time, the daughter species can each evolve in their own way. Your demands are poorly formed today which only tells us that you do not understand what you are arguing against.

 

[exchemist]

Can you explain how you know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are myth?

This issue didn't seem to pose a problem to Origen in 200AD.

 

[Bear Wild]

Can you explain how you know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are myth?

Genesis is a myth as all creations stories and as a type of recreation Noah's ark is a myth. The rest of the bible is a mixture of real characters with mythical events. Earlier events with greater proportion of myth and newer components having more historic factual basis. The same in all religions. As in the story of Sky woman we see other aspects of the history including characters of Nanabozoho, Deganawida, Hiawatha from Native Americans around the great lakes are of North America that are myth yet we cannot say if there whether of not there was not some actual historical figure created into myth. In the case of Deganawida he was the figure who united the tribes into a confederacy to bring peace among the tribes. He planted the tree of peace to bury their weapons creating peace between them.
I mention this mythological history because I am familiar with it (Not Native American myself but grew up on the stories at one point thinking that Deganawida was Jesus who came to the Iroquois since one version stated he could walk on water- very young at that time.). Within the myths there is probably some truth since the Iroquois federation formed. I used this as a comparison for your question. Thus with all creation myths and myths that follow there is probably some actual historic events. It does not matter since the myth is a powerful teacher of the values to the people who believe in them.
As for the bible. Much is myth with probable real characters within the myths. Does it matter? Not if you learn what is important from the myth. Mentioned this before but it is like someone asking about the moon and another points to it. Do you take the pointing finger to be the moon or as a way to look for the moon?