Evolution And I.d. Evidence Arguments

[Pah]

He has his issue and I have mine. KBC has a good argument in his thread but, I would prefer to deal with the evidence and not the wordings of premise. As anyone can see in that thread you argue everything but the evidence and then you now come to this thread to do what? are you dealing with the subject of the thread? NO! If you wish to argue the evidence then lets roll, if you want to argue something else then make a thread.
My interest is scientific, I do not wish to argue religion nor matters of linguistics. I am a non-theist so my idea's about beginnings are different from a theists idea of it.

Then please tell us what the evidence is for Intelligent design. I believe there was a thread that asked the question again and again with no answer.

 

[painted wolf]

your laws of chemistry simply state that in a closed system emphasis on CLOSED, that ballance/equilibrium will/must be maintained. It says nothing of the sort about the 'impossiblity' of the formation of large molicules. :banghead3

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

Don't complain about not seeing any evidence, you simply aren't reading or are ignoring it. Pah and painted wolf both posted numerous times about ploidy and, though some references were merely general pointers to broad subjects such as macro / micro evolution, they are all evidence.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Halcyon and Cerid, size should matter, even for a single-celled organism. The concept of evolution means that life changed from the simple to the complex. People who try and discredit the statistical impossibility of complex genomes point out that building from the simple to the complex dramatically lowers the overwhelming and impossible odds against evolving from the simple to the complex. It must seem appropriate that the simple life forms should be simple in all aspects.

Halcyon, also where do you come up with the idea that all the excess DNA is "junk?"

 

[painted wolf]

except that the 'simple' lifeform has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. It has been mutating and adapting since life began.... it is rediculous to think that it would be able to exist with 'simple' DNA.

People who try to discredit Evolution often fail to realize that evolution does not stop and that eaven 'simple' cells have evolved.

wa:do

 

[Fatmop]

Trying to form a bacterium with 80 billion alleles would be difficult for evolution to explain. What painted wolf said, that everything evolves from the simple to the complex, applies here - archaea, a form of life that many scientists separate from bacteria, predate any other life by millions of years. They are even simpler than bacteria, for the most part, and many can not exist in the presence of oxygen. But to try to produce them in a jar, with chemicals? No, it does not seem feasible to prove abiogenesis by recreating the conditions for life. The conditions for life might have been there for millions, perhaps billions, of years before life ever occurred. What's the timetable for the experiment? Two weeks? "OK, everyone, I have proved that abiogenesis is impossible: I left a piece of charcoal in a jar filled with water, sealed it off, and left it in the fridge for a whole month! There's no life in it! That settles it, God created everything!"

 

[LISA63]

The fact is that chemicals did polymerise, amino acids did form peptides, simple sugars did form huge carbohydrates, and so on. The existence of these compounds in themselves is not evidence for anything.
Science does not understand how these polymers formed (to my knowledge), so we should therefore hypothesise unknown entities that could have started life in violation of these laws?
Entities who apparently are not subject to these laws, that are therefore not alive (as we understand it), and cannot possess intelligence (as I understand it).
This, I believe, is called arguing to ignorance.

Science is supposed to deal with known laws and observation, so if I go by your statement then evolution is also an argument of ignorance because it has no law abiding method of formation and all the tests performed show it as impossible and yet they have still managed to get others to believe it is possible but just not yet found as to method.
So what has your post accomplished? you must treat both premises equally and in doing so you must apply the same thought process's for both. Can you ever hope to see or be able to test macro evolution?
As a scientist I must take into account all known evidences before forming premises and at this point evolution is a dead subject, every knew understanding of the complexity of the biochemistry involved shows how impossible it is to prove by random knmown laws of chemistry.
You say I argue from ignorance of cause but I tell you that it is not ignorance of cause if I can prove what the cause is not, as every scientist knows we can only disprove premises empirically so I am doing just what is expected by any scientific driven person. It is not the point of a premise to prove absolutely, it is rather just a guide as to what to disprove so at this point I wish to see if we can disprove I.d. as easily as I can disprove evolution.

 

[Pah]

...so at this point I wish to see if we can disprove I.d. as easily as I can disprove evolution.

Have I missed something in this particular thread - has evidence FOR ID been presented? Id'ers keep hopping up and down about how evolution is wrong but I have yet too see any evidence, other than Genesis, FOR ID.

Please point to a post or thread (or even an external link) that provides ID evidence I don't know that your credentials can be used FOR ID

 

[LISA63]

your laws of chemistry simply state that in a closed system emphasis on CLOSED, that ballance/equilibrium will/must be maintained. It says nothing of the sort about the 'impossiblity' of the formation of large molicules.

wa:do

My laws? What laws would those be? polymerization? law of mass action? lechateliers priciple?
do you somehow have evidence that the formation of large molecules is possible somewhere else? do you have evidence that any of the laws stated above do not have force somewhere else in the universe? do you suppose that the forces of nature are only local to us here on earth?

How about we state what exactly what "WE" are talking about instead of general statements.

 

[LISA63]

Then please tell us what the evidence is for Intelligent design. I believe there was a thread that asked the question again and again with no answer.

Scientists have created selfreplicating molecules twice that I know of and they did it by force of intelligence not random chance so, I would say that is a fair bit of proof for intelligent ability to overcome known laws to "create" that which is an unnatural formation within our known existence.

 

[LISA63]

except that the 'simple' lifeform has been evolving for hundreds of millions of years. It has been mutating and adapting since life began.... it is rediculous to think that it would be able to exist with 'simple' DNA.

People who try to discredit Evolution often fail to realize that evolution does not stop and that eaven 'simple' cells have evolved.

wa:do

And we have what for evidence??

 

[LISA63]

Trying to form a bacterium with 80 billion alleles would be difficult for evolution to explain...............

And this is evidence of what?

 

[LISA63]

Have I missed something in this particular thread - has evidence FOR ID been presented? Id'ers keep hopping up and down about how evolution is wrong but I have yet too see any evidence, other than Genesis, FOR ID.

Please point to a post or thread (or even an external link) that provides ID evidence I don't know that your credentials can be used FOR ID

This thread deals with evidence for either premise so either post some evidence or proof against a premise, is that to hard for you?

 

[Pah]

Scientists have created selfreplicating molecules twice that I know of and they did it by force of intelligence not random chance so, I would say that is a fair bit of proof for intelligent ability to overcome known laws to "create" that which is an unnatural formation within our known existence.

Twice, you say. and no reference? I have no doubt that your "two" studies carry much more weight (combined with valid objects to abiogenesis theory) in your mind than the vouluminous support for evolution.

Perhaps you can supply thoses references and the reasons they outweigh the evolution evidence.

 

[Pah]

This thread deals with evidence for either premise so either post some evidence or proof against a premise, is that to hard for you?

Have I missed something in this particular thread - has evidence FOR ID been presented?

I see no posts that "deals with evidence" of ID except for the absence of evidence in this and any other thread.

Please stop avoiding the request/question

 

[LISA63]

Twice, you say. and no reference? I have no doubt that your "two" studies carry much more weight (combined with valid objects to abiogenesis theory) in your mind than the vouluminous support for evolution.

Perhaps you can supply thoses references and the reasons they outweigh the evolution evidence.

[font=AdvPS_TTR]

......Recent examples of designed molecular systems capable of self-replication include nucleotide-based oligomers,​

[/font][font=AdvPS_TTR]conjugates of adenine and Kemp s triacid, [/font][font=AdvPS_TTR]peptides, [/font][font=AdvPS_TTR]and micelles.......[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]http://staff.science.nus.edu.sg/~syao/Publications_files/Angew_37_478.pdf[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]-[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]-[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]......In this way they created a novel artificial enzyme, namely a peptide ligase that can form a long peptide from two short ones. Moreover, if the target is identical to the template, the reaction is producing more templates and is therefore autocatalytic (see Fig). In other words, the researchers created the first self-replicating molecule ......[/font]​

-​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]......Jean Chmielewski's group at Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, developed a similar system of their own and incorporated switch functions sensitive to pH or other chemical parameters......[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]http://www.chemsoc.org/chembytes/ezine/2002/gross1_aug02.htm[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]This is proof that by use of intelligence we can form self replicating peptides. In both cases the formation of the self replicators was caused by intelligent manipulation. So proving that intelligence can overcome natural laws and rules is a non problem and backs the idea that lifes systems will soon be able to be formed exactly as we see them now by force of intelligent manipulation.[/font]​

-​

-​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]Now I have backed my assertion with evidence, do you have any evidence to add to this thread? do you have evidence that these formations are attainable by random chance?​

[/font]

 

[Pah]

[

[font=AdvPS_TTR]This is proof that by use of intelligence we can form self replicating peptides. In both cases the formation of the self replicators was caused by intelligent manipulation. So proving that intelligence can overcome natural laws and rules is a non problem and backs the idea that lifes systems will soon be able to be formed exactly as we see them now by force of intelligent manipulation.[/font]​

[font=AdvPS_TTR]Now I have backed my assertion with evidence, do you have any evidence to add to this thread? do you have evidence that these formations are attainable by random chance?​

[/font]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11752

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11393

Peptides??? not proteins???? Peptides are close but are not proteins

From your second reference

The availability of such peptides provides a unique opportunity to study complex molecular behaviour in a simple system. Some of the processes involved will be spookily reminiscent of things happening in the living cell. For example, Ghadiri's group reported the emergence of 'symbiosis' - two distinct self-replicators enhancing each other's success - in their early work on peptide hypercycles.1 However, one should not be tempted to transfer these findings to the still largely mysterious field of the origin and pre-cellular evolution of life. Biological molecules do not actually replicate themselves, but rather replicate each other. Furthermore, most researchers see RNA as a more promising candidate for the principal role in the early molecular stages of evolution. Thus, self-replicating peptides may have little to teach us about the roots of the tree of life, but they do add some interesting new branches to the tree of chemistry.

And please explain how natural laws were overcome. Inteligent manipulation is not intelligent design but a use of natural law or theory. If you can't get past this confusion the discussion is useless.

 

[Fatmop]

I like how you cherry-picked my argument. Seems like you only read the first sentence. Thanks so much for the respect!

 

[LISA63]

Peptides??? not proteins???? Peptides are close but are not protein

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY
and
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
IUPAC-IUB Joint Commission on Biochemical Nomenclature (JCBN)

3AA-11. DEFINITION OF PEPTIDES A peptide is any compound produced by amide formation between a carboxyl group of one amino acid and an amino group of another. The amide bonds in peptides may be called peptide bonds. The word peptide usually applies to compounds whose amide bonds are formed between C-l of one amino acid and N-2 of another (sometimes called eupeptide bonds), but it includes compounds with residues linked by other amide bonds (sometimes called isopeptide bonds). Peptides with fewer than about 10-20 residues may also be called oligopeptides; those with more, polypeptides. Polypeptides of specific sequence of more than about 50 residues are usually known as proteins, but authors differ greatly on where they start using this term.

Proteins are the name given for long strings of peptides so peptides are the precursors to proteins and have the same build up chemistry and like I said scientist are manipulating them to more complex forms and will soon be immitating known complex systems so obviously you know nothing about protein formation.

From your second reference
And please explain how natural laws were overcome. Inteligent manipulation is not intelligent design but a use of natural law or theory. If you can't get past this confusion the discussion is useless.

Scientists have tried to make long formations of peptides by natural laws and it always fails so they must manipulate the chemistry using INTELLIGENCE that would not normally occur in any natural setting and in order to do this they must have a design in mind as an end result otherwise they would be pretty dumb huh? manipulation follows the blueprint designed by a chemist who wants to form a specific peptide string and then they invent methods to overcome nature and achieve that result . I will not explain how the manipulation is done as this is part of the paper they have released and had peer reviewed so go look it up yourself, your first clue should be the solution they do the synthesis in, hmmm. now where on earth or anywhere else for that matter does such a solution form naturally?.
now the explanation of how natural laws were overcome is in the forming of the peptides and the subsequent stabilizing of the formed peptide to keep it from doing what it NATURALLY wants to do according to the law of mass action or don't you understand what that is? The secret is in keeping them from water since the minute you reintroduce water they will NATURALLY break apart into their components since POLYMERIZATION IS A WELL KNOWN 2 WAY STREET so, if you knew anything about polymerization this would be a no brainer. The fact is that chemicals don't want to stay compound but rather prefer to be separated which is why it is not NATURAL to find chains of peptides just sitting around getting longer. So it is obvious that you don't posess the knowledge to argue chemistry otherwise you would know that proteins and their shorter versions (peptides) follow the the known laws of nature and DO NOT EVER naturally form into anything complex.
You should study and learn what polymerization and lechateliers priciple and the law of mass action really mean otherwise you will fail at any argument where chemistry is involved, I have had 3 years of hands on woirk with this very subject and you will not by any philosophical means change what every biochemistry student learns in their first year and what EVERY professor has known for longer than your lifetime.

"Inteligent manipulation is not intelligent design" This is choice stuff here !:bonk: :biglaugh:
I suppose a car just gets Intelligently manipulated together without a design as well right?.

Now do you have any evidence that would overturn the evidence I have shown or not?
This thread asks for evidence for or against I.D. or Evolution, what do you have to offer?

 

[LISA63]

I like how you cherry-picked my argument. Seems like you only read the first sentence. Thanks so much for the respect!

you are asking for respect after telling me that I should listen to arguments by others who think that nature can form complex chemistry if it only had zillions of years and the proper environment?
You want respect then read up on peptide and protien formation and then lay out for me the proper condition that induces the formation of of even 1 single protein, keep in mind that a protein is usually classified as having 50 or more amino acid residues in a chain and according to all scientific tests when attempting to form protien chains longer than about 15 residues the chain folds over and prevents any further amino acid redue attachments to the chain. I will respect an intelligent argument that speaks the truth about chemistry and not the imaginings of wishfull thinking.