How do you detect "design"?

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are no explanations of how it evolved, there are only educated guesses of a potential pathway which is just presumed to be an explanation of how it did evolve.
Proposing a pathway does not show this pathway to be correct.
Even if this proposed pathway is correct, that does not show that it isn't designed.



Sounds like proposing a hypothesis and other scientists trying to falsify it. Isn't that how it goes, and if it is not falsified then it is correct.
In another hypothesis a scientists is actually saying "Duh, I don't know how this thing could have happened any other way than the way I am proposing." Then other scientists try to falsify it. That is not called an aguement from ignorance even though it is.
Your bias towards scientists who are believers is showing.

Yeah, as long as you understand that the limit to science as you claim it, doesn't mean that it is evidence for God. You do understand that, don't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are no explanations of how it evolved, there are only educated guesses of a potential pathway which is just presumed to be an explanation of how it did evolve.
Proposing a pathway does not show this pathway to be correct.

I heavily disagree, off course, but let's run with it for the sake of argument.

Then the argument "for" design is still nothing but an argument from ignorance.
And I put "for" between quotes, because it's not actually an argument FOR anything... At best, it's a half-arsed argument against some idea that is deemed to be rivaling design.

It's just an argument from the gaps disguised in a lab coat. Nothing more or less.

Even if this proposed pathway is correct, that does not show that it isn't designed.

Again with the negative nonsense. You still haven't learned your previous lesson it seems.
Sure, it doesn't show that it is "not" designed. Just like relativity doesn't show that undetectable graviton pixies are "not" involved.
Just like how germ theory doesn't show that evil sick-making spirits are "not" involved.



As a statement, it is completely meaningless.

Sounds like proposing a hypothesis and other scientists trying to falsify it.

No. A hypothesis is a clear and detailed testable model, which itself is already based and supported by some evidence (actual POSITIVE evidence FOR the idea... not mere ignorant negative "evidence" against some different idea)
Not some bare faith based claim that is based on nothing but ignorance and an argument from the gaps.

Isn't that how it goes, and if it is not falsified then it is correct.
In another hypothesis a scientists is actually saying "Duh, I don't know how this thing could have happened any other way than the way I am proposing." Then other scientists try to falsify it. That is not called an aguement from ignorance even though it is.
Your bias towards scientists who are believers is showing.

It's not my bias that is showing.
It's your incredibly juvenile and ignorant idea of what a hypothesis is, that is showing.

 

[Brian2]

Who told you a designer is something at all? Where did you hear about that idea?

It's really just one of the 2 possibilities. Are you suggesting that there is only one possibility, that everything came about without a designer?

You are minimizing what science can do. Are you aware of your bias at work here since science threatens your religious beliefs? We see it, don't you see yourself doing it?

Science follows facts and data to form conclusions that account for ALL of the data. Nothing suggests what creationism wants.

Science follows and can only follow some of the data and forms conclusions based on that limited data and based on the rules of science and what it is able to do and conclude.

There is no reason to assume supervision, or design, or creators, or gods. There are no facts that suggest these are real. Science has to follow facts, period. The absense of a supernatural means it is irrelevant. This is a problem for believers, not science. Trying to make this issue a problem for science, or that science is somehow deficient, is a major flaw in your position. You need to show the world that a supernatural supervisor/designed exists. Since you can't, we throw it out.

Science does not assume supervision or design or creators or gods or pixies. These are things that science is not able to study. Some people seem to think that because they are not assumed, that means that science has shown that they do not exist.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

There are no explanations of how it evolved, there are only educated guesses of a potential pathway which is just presumed to be an explanation of how it did evolve.

Mechanism and pathway are different aspects of explanation. The mechanism for how any biological population or structure evolved is what the theory asserts, namely, natural selection applied to genetic variation in populations over generations. The specific pathways are interesting if they can be elucidated, but that may not always be possible, and it is never necessary. Nor does the theory depend on that being done.

Proposing a pathway does not show this pathway to be correct.

Agreed. The scientists know that. So do most people posting on this thread.

Even if this proposed pathway is correct, that does not show that it isn't designed.

Correct again. The whole universe might have been designed, which is more than enough for the creationist to conclude that it was. I say more than enough because even were there a way to disprove that claim, the creationist would go on believing it anyway.

Science does not assume supervision or design or creators or gods or pixies. These are things that science is not able to study.

Agree again. Science is the study of reality, real things being those objects and processes which can be found somewhere at some time interacting with other real things, like cats and the sun, like clouds and earthquakes. So far, no gods or pixies have ever been spotted anywhere at any time, so they are not the purview of science. These remain creatures from fiction and man's imagination until we have reason to believe otherwise.

Sounds like proposing a hypothesis and other scientists trying to falsify it. Isn't that how it goes

No. That's shifting the burden of proof. The one proposing the hypothesis must also make a case for why he believes that it is fact. If he does that, then THAT is what others attempt to falsify, not the original bare claim.

if it is not falsified then it is correct.

No again. That the ignorantium fallacy stated as succinctly as I've ever seen it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's really just one of the 2 possibilities

Is it? When have you demonstrated a "designer" to being an actual possibility?
Just claiming it is a possibility isn't enough.

I could also simply claim that undetectable graviton pixies are a "possibility" for gravity. Does that make it so?

Also, since you seem to think that bare claims are valid "possibilities", how did you conclude that there are just 2 possibilities? If bare claims count as possibilities, I'ld rather say that the actual amount of possibilities is potentially infinite....

Are you suggesting that there is only one possibility, that everything came about without a designer?

We are saying that your claim is meaningless and that for something to be regarded as an actual possibility, it needs to be demonstrated as an actual possibility.
Just claiming it will not cut it.

Science follows and can only follow some of the data and forms conclusions based on that limited data and based on the rules of science and what it is able to do and conclude.

Yes and it is not allowed to just make stuff up and declare it to be valid "just because". Like you are doing.
This is a strength of science, not a weakness...

Science does not assume supervision or design or creators or gods or pixies

Indeed it doesn't. Why would it? Why should it?
There is no reason to. So it doesn't. Why do you imply that this is some kind of problem?

It seems to me that it is a GOOD thing that it doesn't get to just make stuff up.

These are things that science is not able to study.

Only because there is nothing there to study.............

Some people seem to think that because they are not assumed, that means that science has shown that they do not exist.

Nobody is saying that and you have been informed of that multiple times already.
But alas................

 

[Brian2]

They reject that biological evolution was a natural process when they add a supernatural element.

What you call a natural process seems to assume that it was not designed, but you cannot know that.

You offer no reason for that. You offer no argument why people who don't agree with you should change their minds.

Incidentally, I think it should say the same category as a god rather than belief in a god. Gods, leprechauns, and the Easter Bunny have common characteristics that place them in a category with everything else with those characteristics. Nobody can interact with them because they never appear at any time or place. These are the qualities of the nonexistent. These are the qualities that every fictitious creature imagined by man have in common.

People have interacted with God for thousands of years.

I just wrote a fairly complete answer to that yesterday on another thread:

​

Evidence is whatever is evident to the senses, whether that is seen through a microscope or experienced as an aroma or an impending sneeze. The words are cognates, the former being the noun form and the latter the adjective.​

​

Evidence begins as a bare apprehension - something is present or has changed. This is followed by comprehension (what is the evidence evidence of?) - what we know about this apprehension, such as whether it's familiar, what commonly follows such apprehensions, and similar facts learned from prior experience - and affective judgment - how we feel about it ("Mmmm!" "Run!" "This is interesting / important").​

​

The subject of what are the senses is an interesting one. There are more than five.​

​

Some tell us about remote happenings, like sight, sound, and smell.​

​

Some tell us about the body surface, such as taste, touch, and temperature.​

​

Some tell us about the outer body (musculoskeletal system) such as the position and movements of our bodies and limbs.​

​

Some tell us about our deep organs (viscera), like indigestion or angina.​

​

Some tell us about or chemical status, such as thirst or shortness of breath.​

​

The most fundamental sensory organ is the wakeful brain (consciousness itself including dreams), which senses the self (subject) situated within the theater of the mind (object) as well as the passage of time (was, is, will be).​

​

They all generate evidence for the subject of consciousness. They are all experienced just like visual evidence - bare apprehension followed by some degree of comprehension and often emotion (affect) and/or urge to act (volition).​

Science does not study spiritual things and so does not see any spiritual senses.

OK. I disagree. Did you want to try and change minds or just express what it is you have chosen to believe?

In my opinion, belief by faith is a logical error, one committed by all children and many adults. I consider my humanity relatively evolved in the sense that I have learned how and why not to think like that. I see the religious phase of man being the period that connected early man searching for answers and for means for controlling his life (rituals, chants) with the part when he got those answers. None of my beliefs involve gods, and nothing I do to control my life involves gods. That's MY humanity - atheistic humanism. I consider reaching that point an important milestone in personal development and self-actualization.

Living more by faith in Jesus and His leading of me, and following that lead, is what I aim for. It is no good just doing things by halves in our chosen path.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What you call a natural process seems to assume that it was not designed, but you cannot know that.

You can say the exact same meaningless negative statement about ANY demonstrable natural process.
Plate tectonics, germs, gravity, atomic decay, super novae, volcano eruptions, rain, ....

Hey, the natural process explanation of lightning formation doesn't exclude Jupiter and Thor.

People have interacted with God for thousands of years.

No. People have claimed to have interacted with god(s) for thousands of years.

Science does not study spiritual things and so does not see any spiritual senses.

Yes. We have established already that science can only study things that have detectable manifestation. AKA which are demonstrably real.

 

[F1fan]

There have been certain persons here who have made a point of pretending to be interested in learning but then nearly immediately reposting the same errors that have been explained numerous times. They are doing IMO what is called trolling. Worse than that, they claim to be representatives of the Christian faith and have so abused the respect that we try to grant to others that as you have noted, even a Christian moderator has found their behaviour difficult.

I have stopped putting in much effort to explain the errors to creationists. I have to wonder if they are seeking attention, and that's where they get off as a forum member, that to eat up the time of the well educated. Some of these folks just need to be ignored. I thought about starting a thread about this issue.

Disagreements are to be expected here, but refusing to make an effort to understand other's point of view is IMO not worthy of respect and has led some to respond as one would to a person who disrespects the speaker.

As an atheist I strive not to call Christians names, but I do expect them to behave in what they claim is a Christian manner, there are limits that neither should cross, you might want to read back further.

There seems a huge chip on the shoulder of some Christians, and real disdain for atheists. I have asked direct questions about their attitudes towards atheists and seldom get a direct answer. The vilification of atheists is just a learned bias like racism is, and it has no basis.

 

[F1fan]

How ridiculous!

If ATP-synthase could "come about naturally", evolutionists would have no problem explaining the origin of life from inorganic matter.

Much of what you read around these parts is pure nonsense.

PS: And YES, I am a Jehovah's Witness, a devout believer and practitioner of true Christianity... and I do not believe in the myth that evolutionists invented that believers are not rational and scientifically thinking people, like everything they repeat to each other to please themselves.

Science is the norm in the 21st sentury. Evolution is an accepted explanation. It's on your religious folk with your assumptions of a creator doing things that have to show your beliefs are better than what science revorts. Let's note that you can't even show us that any god exists, yet you expect the well educated to accept your religious beliefs. Absurd.

 

[F1fan]

There are no explanations of how it evolved, there are only educated guesses of a potential pathway which is just presumed to be an explanation of how it did evolve.
Proposing a pathway does not show this pathway to be correct.
Even if this proposed pathway is correct, that does not show that it isn't designed.

Experts in science create the models, and they are the most likley explanations. Creationists and ID folks offer no better models, just demands and complaints. We note these folks can't even show that any god or creator exists that would account for the models they want to be true.

Sounds like proposing a hypothesis and other scientists trying to falsify it. Isn't that how it goes, and if it is not falsified then it is correct.
In another hypothesis a scientists is actually saying "Duh, I don't know how this thing could have happened any other way than the way I am proposing." Then other scientists try to falsify it. That is not called an aguement from ignorance even though it is.
Your bias towards scientists who are believers is showing.

You don't seem to trust scientists. Why is that? Are you trying to discredit them because you have religious beluefs that you would prefer to be true, but lack evidence for?

Scientists are the experts, and they have learned the ethics and standards required of their work. We critical thinkers surely don't listen to the "ethics" of those who are dishonest about science, scientists, and results in science. Creationism has created (irony intended) a community of believers that have been exploited, and in doing so the believers have gotten duped into non-credible beliefs that ruin integrity and reputations. The believers on forums who show they have been indocrinated into not only a religious framework, but one that is contrary to what science reports, is an embarrassment.

 

[F1fan]

What you call a natural process seems to assume that it was not designed, but you cannot know that.

False. There is no reason to assume design. Your comment shows how you don't understand that science follows facts, and does NOT make any assumption, like those you religious folks do.

People have interacted with God for thousands of years.

Can you prove any gods exist? Can you prove than anyone who claims to have interacted with a god actually did? If you can't, then your claim here is false.

You should have written: people have claimed to interact with God for thousands of years.

Science does not study spiritual things and so does not see any spiritual senses.

False, the social science study the pychology of religion, the sociology of religion, the psychology of belief, and in general how brains process religious thoughts and what this tells us about how the human brain evolved to be religious.

Living more by faith in Jesus and His leading of me, and following that lead, is what I aim for. It is no good just doing things by halves in our chosen path.

Who told you tho believe this, and that what you believe about Jesus is valuable and meaningful? Are you aware that many humans don't have religious belief and live fulfilled lives? Do you find it meaningful to have disdain for science?

 

[shunyadragon]

It's really just one of the 2 possibilities. Are you suggesting that there is only one possibility, that everything came about without a designer?

It remains a possibility that God Created our physical existence and humanity, but at present there is absolutely no objective evidence for 'design or a designer.

Science follows and can only follow some of the data and forms conclusions based on that limited data and based on the rules of science and what it is able to do and conclude.

Roughly true with caution.

Science does not assume supervision or design or creators or gods or pixies. These are things that science is not able to study. Some people seem to think that because they are not assumed, that means that science has shown that they do not exist.

This is a vague 'arguing from ignorance.'

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like this person?

LOL It's a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It's a comedy movie.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm no religious nut, but this is just plain false. Please provide a blow-by-blow account of how ATP-synthase came to exist. Thanks.

Evolution of the structure of ATP synthase | MRC Mitochondrial Biology Unit

EVOLUTION OF THE STRUCTURE OF ATP SYNTHASE timeline-530.png 1994 The first atomic resolution structure of the F1 catalytic domain of the ATP synthase from bovine heart mitochondria determined by X-ray crystallography.

www.mrc-mbu.cam.ac.uk

The Ancestral Shape of the Access Proton Path of Mitochondrial ATP Synthases Revealed by a Split Subunit-a

Abstract. The passage of protons across membranes through F1Fo-ATP synthases spins their rotors and drives the synthesis of ATP. While the principle of tor

academic.oup.com

ATP synthase evolution on a cross-braced dated tree of life - Nature Communications

The timing of cellular evolution is poorly constrained. Here, the authors used improved molecular dating approaches to study the evolution of the ATP synthase in light of a dated tree of life thereby providing an absolute timescale for cellular evolution including eukaryotic origins.

www.nature.com

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are no explanations of how it evolved, there are only educated guesses of a potential pathway which is just presumed to be an explanation of how it did evolve.
Proposing a pathway does not show this pathway to be correct.
Even if this proposed pathway is correct, that does not show that it isn't designed.

Hmm, it sounds like, if you're the one making the claim that it IS designed, it's on you to demonstrate that and not on others to show that it's not.
You know, like how the burden of proof works.

Sounds like proposing a hypothesis and other scientists trying to falsify it. Isn't that how it goes, and if it is not falsified then it is correct.
In another hypothesis a scientists is actually saying "Duh, I don't know how this thing could have happened any other way than the way I am proposing." Then other scientists try to falsify it. That is not called an aguement from ignorance even though it is.
Your bias towards scientists who are believers is showing.

You're projecting.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the well educated have to tolerate a lot of nonsense from creationists who often seem to be deceptive and disingenuous. The well educated are patient with creationists who seldom are willing to understand the flaws in their beliefs.

I think that a part of the problem is that there is a culture of academia that one takes with him, one that others that haven't travelled that path aren't aware of and the values of which they continually violate, and there is a tendency to become offended by that. Though they claim otherwise, these people are not pursuing truth. They are trying to justify faith-based beliefs that don't hold up to scrutiny using tactics that seem dishonest.

There seems a huge chip on the shoulder of some Christians, and real disdain for atheists. I have asked direct questions about their attitudes towards atheists and seldom get a direct answer. The vilification of atheists is just a learned bias like racism is, and it has no basis.

Agreed. Many Abrahamic theists have been taught that atheists are immoral, defiant, rebellious, demon-infested (malicious), and hedonistic, and they either can't hide it or actually want to claim it. Their atheophobia along with their homophobia, misogyny, and anti-intellectualism are good reasons to speak out about and oppose such religions.

There have been certain persons here who have made a point of pretending to be interested in learning but then nearly immediately reposting the same errors that have been explained numerous times. They are doing IMO what is called trolling.

This would be an example of an objection to the violation of standards that one acquires during a university education, where the culture is all about truth and accuracy and the identification and correction of such errors. They give lip service to truth, education, debate, reason, and science, but are unfamiliar with them as academia understands those terms, and this appears to be the source of much friction and hard feelings. You say trolling, another educated person says stalking, and the creationists refer to arrogance and rudeness.

Please provide a blow-by-blow account of how ATP-synthase came to exist.

Why? The information may not be available yet or ever. If it is, you should ask a biochemist. Your point seems to be that this enzyme is irreducibly complex, and that if somebody cannot show that it isn't that it isn't. Tagliatelli has already explained why the claim of irreducible complexity and therefore intelligent design is an ignorantium fallacy. I have explained why the inability to elucidate pathways is irrelevant to the validity of the theory.

you went right ahead and exemplified what I just posted.

Let's review that discussion:

You: "How are they going to maintain their presumption of intellectual superiority"

Me: "yes, critical thinkers consider critical thought superior to faith and sound argument superior to bare assertion. If they didn't, they would embrace faith. Faith-based thinkers also consider their ways superior, or they would respect the opinions of critical thinkers."

You: "you went right ahead and exemplified what I just posted."

What I said is that critical thinkers find critical thought (including empiricism) superior to faith (as a path to truth), and that faith-based thinkers assert the opposite. Yet you want to frame that as intellectual conceit.

As there are various thinkers about God in religion and they are not all the same, so it is among those who believe in creation.

That was a response to, "When a creationist refers to design, he means intended design. He means designed by an intelligent designer." Creationists are all the same in the sense that they all say that universe was intelligently designed. I trust you agree. If not, perhaps you can say why you disagree.

You have your viewpoints and others may not agree with you, and even though this is a debate forum, there is no need as far as I am concerned to debate you.

There is never a need to make your point unless you want to be believed. If you don't mind having your beliefs disregarded, there is no need to support them.

If ATP-synthase could "come about naturally", evolutionists would have no problem explaining the origin of life from inorganic matter.

It looks like you're confusing abiogenesis and biological evolution again. The origin of life is explained by the laws of chemistry just as the laws of biological evolution explain the origin of the tree of life from a common ancestral population. Have you studied organic chemistry, physical chemistry, or biochemistry? When the proper constituents are in proximity in the proper environment, exothermic reactions proceed spontaneously. Synthetic chemists use this understanding to build chemicals, how to convert an aldehyde to a carboxylic acid or vice versa or how to methylate an amino acid.

It is said that it is very rare that you can find two snowflakes exactly alike, so what natural process would create such a variety of symmetries that do not even repeat?

Meiosis. Apart from twinning, every daughter cell is unique

A natural process is supposed to repeat the same results under the same conditions...however, that doesn't happen with snowflake designs specifically.

That means that either an intelligent designer was down there whipping off snowflakes creatively, or that snowflake design is sensitive to local initial conditions, which are likely never identical.

What you call a natural process seems to assume that it was not designed, but you cannot know that.

It is NOT assumed that intelligent design was not involved, and yes, we cannot know that the universe wasn't intelligently designed. That seems to matter more to you than to critical thinkers, who are content to treat the universe as undesigned until there is a good reason to think otherwise.

People have interacted with God for thousands of years.

I don't believe that. There is no good evidence that any god exists or has ever interacted with man.

Science does not study spiritual things and so does not see any spiritual senses.

Use of the word spiritual doesn't justify calling imagined things real. Likewise with the word supernatural. Referring to it doesn't make it a thing. Both are linguistic sleights-of-hand used to explain why nobody can find what others have imagined and have claimed exist somewhere but don't actually exist.

Living more by faith in Jesus and His leading of me, and following that lead, is what I aim for.

Yes, and as you read, it's something I and many others have labored to avoid. As I said, "In my opinion, belief by faith is a logical error." That academic tradition I referred to seeks to identify which ideas are correct and the methods to elucidate them. That's a summum bonum in liberal studies. The critical thinker strives to accumulate as many correct ideas as possible while avoiding belief in wrong and not-even-wrong ideas, so naturally, he attempts to avoid making logical errors. Leaps of faith produce non sequiturs.

So how do we identify correct ideas and distinguish them from incorrect ones? If an idea is the sound conclusion of an argument, it can generally be demonstrated to successfully predict outcomes. If it does that, it can be called correct.

Furthermore, a correct idea is falsifiable but is never falsified. That's why we call the theory of evolution correct beyond reasonable doubt. It's a sound conclusion derived from interpreting data, it makes accurate predictions, and it hasn't been falsified.

And that's why we have debate (dialectic). Two or more critical thinkers attempt to falsify one another's claims and arguments, the last plausible, unrebutted position being considered provisionally correct until and unless someone can come along and rebut/falsify it.

That's also a plank in that academic philosophy and culture, one which the creationists and others seem unaware. When somebody makes a sound argument that is not successfully rebutted, he's forfeited the debate. If he's part of that culture, he recognizes and acknowledges that fact, and is happy to report that he's been educated. If he's not, he considers the interaction a draw, unaware of those rules or how he's perceived for violating them.

Debate is like a game of ping-pong when two competent debaters are present, but when one isn't a critical thinker, the volley generally consists of a serve (initial claim), a return (rebuttal), and that's it (no acknowledgement of the rebuttal or counterargument to it). And since the returner has made the last plausible, unrebutted argument, his position has prevailed. That's also how it works in a courtroom. Attorneys offer mutually exclusive theories, each offering evidence and an interpretation of its significance in confirming guilt or innocence, each trying to refute the other until an argument remains which cannot be successfully rebutted, and then a verdict.

That's also how scientific peer review works. Along with pragmatism, or a demonstration that an idea works, it's the academic standard for deciding the truth and correctness of ideas.

 

[F1fan]

It's really just one of the 2 possibilities.

Were you really born from a womb, or delivered by a stork? Is it really just 1 of the 2 possibilities?

The reason your religious options are dismissed is because there is no factual basis for them. Where's evidence of your creator/designer? Nothing, so why connsider it as a possibility? I can show you a stork, show me your God. If you can't, then you're sunk. Get science right.

Are you suggesting that there is only one possibility, that everything came about without a designer?

What designer? If you want design and designers to be taken seriously show us one exists. We don't care about your religious tradition of belief, it's irrelevant. You need to learn that your religious tradition of belief in not evidence, and not relevant to explain how things are in reality. Sorry, hard truth.

Science follows and can only follow some of the data and forms conclusions based on that limited data and based on the rules of science and what it is able to do and conclude.

False, science HAS for account for all facts and all data. No exceptions.

Get science right if you are going to post about science.

Science does not assume supervision or design or creators or gods or pixies.

Correct. Science makes the fewest assumptions possible. Gods, angels, demons, Santa, the Easter Bunny, etc. are not relevant ideas to understanding what is true about reality.

These are things that science is not able to study.

Nor can science study Hobbits, or any other fictional characters. But it can study why humans believe that fictional characters exist.

Some people seem to think that because they are not assumed, that means that science has shown that they do not exist.

Irrelevant. Even believers can't show is that their gods exist. That's why gods/creators/designers are irrelevant to science. With over 200 creator gods in human history none are taken seriously as causing anything. The gods that created the Hawaiian Islands are not considered to be behind the volcanic activity that actually caused them.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What you call a natural process seems to assume that it was not designed, but you cannot know that.

You're the one making the assumption here. The assumption that it was designed. And you have no evidence to offer.
So why should anyone consider it?

People have interacted with God for thousands of years.

Correction: People claim to have interacted with GodS for thousands of years. Do you think people have interacted with Thor? Allah? Apollo?

Science does not study spiritual things and so does not see any spiritual senses.

What are "spiritual things?" Sounds like it's just stuff you want to believe, but can't show to be true.

Living more by faith in Jesus and His leading of me, and following that lead, is what I aim for. It is no good just doing things by halves in our chosen path.

Thanks for demonstrating yet again that faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have good evidence for it. And that it is not a reliable pathway to truth because anything can be believed on faith.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm no religious nut, but this is just plain false. Please provide a blow-by-blow account of how ATP-synthase came to exist. Thanks.

First the explanation is not simple. It is extremely complex

Your request for a "blow-by-blow account of how ATP-synthase came to exist." reflects a "Intelligent Design" challenge. and as far as abiogenesis and early evolution, Such a claim represents a lack of knowledge of the science involved and a strong bias against any objective evidence. Yes, science does not have the original "blow-by-blow account of how ATP-synthase came to exist." of ATP synthesis, but the reference in #881 provides some basics of the timeline for ATP-synthesis. The first simple virus/and or bacteria lacked the ability to produce their own energy, and relied on the heat and the rich nutrient environments of the Hydrothermal Vents where life originated, and first signs of life have been found.

There are several chemical and environmental pathways for the natural ATP synthesis, The following is a good beginning.

The following reference is pretty good beginning to the question of origins of ATP-synthesis

Prebiotic Synthesis of ATP: A Terrestrial Volcanism-Dependent Pathway - PMC

Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) is a multifunctional small molecule, necessary for all modern Earth life, which must be a component of the last universal common ancestor (LUCA). However, the relatively complex structure of ATP causes doubts about its ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Prebiotic Synthesis of ATP: A Terrestrial Volcanism-Dependent Pathway​

Xin-Yi Chu1,2,3 and Hong-Yu Zhang1,*
César Menor-Salván, Academic Editor

4. Discussion​

Because of the fundamentality and multiplicity of its roles, ATP has long been a focus of studies in various fields of life sciences. The previous content showed the possible pathway to ATP on primitive Earth. However, whether ATP assumed its present functions from the moment it was synthesized is still debatable. As a complex system, modern organisms are constructed by thousands of molecules, from simple H2O to genome DNA, ATP also depends on other molecules to function, which should also be the case in prebiotic chemical evolution.
As a component of RNA and cofactor of protein, ATP needs to cooperate with other nucleotides and amino acids to form functional polymers. HCN and its derivative acrylonitrile have been supposed to be sources of pyrimidine nucleotides, amino acids, and lipid precursors [76]. The related reactions may be occurred in different places with suitable conditions and the products are gathered through the water system. The wet-dry cycle environment in which ATP is produced is also appropriate for the condensation of nucleotides and amino acids. If ATP is present when the peptide is formed, it may bind to the latter and help them fold. This effect may have picked out some of the earliest structured peptides [82,83]. As evidence, ATP binds some oldest protein structures and conserved sequence fragments and is the most prevalent cofactor in protein structure space [2]. in vitro selection experiments using ATP as the bait in random sequence peptides obtained items with a similar structure or sequence motif to modern ATP binding proteins [84,85]. The inheritance of these proteins remains a problem because how RNA coding proteins and self-replication still does not have a solution. Recent studies showing the preference for interactions between different oligonucleotides and amino acids [86], as well as the modified nucleotides which are easier to be ligated [87], have shed new light on these problems. Moreover, the homochirality of RNA and protein, which is a significant issue in the origin of life, may also be achieved during the replication of RNA and ribozyme catalyzed peptide synthesis [88,89,90].
Interestingly, the in vitro selected peptides have ATPase activity, which is connected to the role of ATP as an energy currency. In modern organisms, the energy from ATP phosphate bonds hydrolysis is generally channeled to certain energy-consuming processes through specific proteins with ATPase activity. In addition to the ATP binding domain, these proteins normally have other domains to specifically bind substrates of the reaction that need to be powered. These proteins not only promote energy release but more importantly also enables precise control of energy flow. In the early stage of chemical evolution, these processes are unlikely to involve protein enzymes. Without the controller, the energy sources may be more extensive than the specific use of ATP. That is, the role of ATP as energy currency may be established as its binding proteins became dominant. Other simpler compounds such as pyrophosphate and acetyl phosphate may be more widely used in the prebiotic reactions [91]. Similarly, other simpler phosphorylation reagents may also have been widely used before the advent of kinases.
The recently identified hydrotrope function of ATP depends on its concentration at the millimolar level. This function may only be available and significant in the membrane-enclosed vesicles. In modern life, the membrane is a necessary condition for the stable supply of large amounts of ATP. ATP synthase is driven by the proton gradient inside and outside the membrane. The complex structure of ATP synthase implies its later origination. Moreover, the main function of hydrotrope is inhibiting biomacromolecule aggregation. If not confined in vesicles, it should also be difficult for macromolecules to reach concentrations where they can aggregate.
In summary, based on previous findings on the synthesis of ATP components, we constructed a terrestrial volcanism-dependent ATP synthesis pathway. Some other reactions that may play an important role in the prebiotic synthesis of ATP were also briefly described. After appearing on Earth, ATP may have first served as the component of macromolecules and driven energy-consuming processes together with other high-energy molecules. As enzyme-catalyzed reactions took over the original abiotic ones, ATP became the main direct energy source. Perhaps no later than the emergence of the enzyme system, the membranes that encapsulate it also appeared. To avoid the harmful aggregation of macromolecules in the crowded primitive cell, ATP got a new role as a hydrotrope. Beyond the fundamental functions in the origin of life, in modern organisms, ATP plays a role in antiaging [92], and may have an application in precision medicine by inspiring the identification of prognostic biomarkers and treatments for breast cancer [93].
An area less covered above is the possible contribution of extraterrestrial materials in ATP synthesis. In addition to the reactive phosphorus, ribose [94], nucleobases [95], and other abundant organics [96] have also been identified in meteorites, which may be involved in the prebiotic synthesis of ATP. The possible mechanism for how these compounds were generated in space was also reported recently [97]. The volcanism-based ATP synthesis pathway proposed in this paper may also be achieved beyond Earth. Primitive Mars is supposed to be somehow similar to primitive Earth. Primitive Mars was once geologically active, and Olympus Mons, the highest mountain in the solar system, was also created by volcanism [98]. Volcanic lightning can produce HCN in the carbon dioxide-nitrogen Martian atmosphere [99]. Geological activity may also be a source of formaldehyde [100]. In addition, Martian phosphate minerals have higher dissolution rates and phosphate release rates than common Earth phosphate minerals, which is conducive to the occurrence of phosphorus-related reactions [101]. Based on these substances, Earth-like planets such as Mars may be able to generate ATP according to the pathway we proposed. On the contrary, on smaller celestial bodies that cannot maintain geological activity and atmosphere, other ways are needed to produce ATP.
Go to:

​

 

[YoursTrue]

I think that a part of the problem is that there is a culture of academia that one takes with him, one that others that haven't travelled that path aren't aware of and the values of which they continually violate, and there is a tendency to become offended by that. Though they claim otherwise, these people are not pursuing truth. They are trying to justify faith-based beliefs that don't hold up to scrutiny using tactics that seem dishonest.

Agreed. Many Abrahamic theists have been taught that atheists are immoral, defiant, rebellious, demon-infested (malicious), and hedonistic, and they either can't hide it or actually want to claim it. Their atheophobia along with their homophobia, misogyny, and anti-intellectualism are good reasons to speak out about and oppose such religions.

This would be an example of an objection to the violation of standards that one acquires during a university education, where the culture is all about truth and accuracy and the identification and correction of such errors. They give lip service to truth, education, debate, reason, and science, but are unfamiliar with them as academia understands those terms, and this appears to be the source of much friction and hard feelings. You say trolling, another educated person says stalking, and the creationists refer to arrogance and rudeness.

Why? The information may not be available yet or ever. If it is, you should ask a biochemist. Your point seems to be that this enzyme is irreducibly complex, and that if somebody cannot show that it isn't that it isn't. Tagliatelli has already explained why the claim of irreducible complexity and therefore intelligent design is an ignorantium fallacy. I have explained why the inability to elucidate pathways is irrelevant to the validity of the theory.

Let's review that discussion:

You: "How are they going to maintain their presumption of intellectual superiority"

Me: "yes, critical thinkers consider critical thought superior to faith and sound argument superior to bare assertion. If they didn't, they would embrace faith. Faith-based thinkers also consider their ways superior, or they would respect the opinions of critical thinkers."

You: "you went right ahead and exemplified what I just posted."

What I said is that critical thinkers find critical thought (including empiricism) superior to faith (as a path to truth), and that faith-based thinkers assert the opposite. Yet you want to frame that as intellectual conceit.

That was a response to, "When a creationist refers to design, he means intended design. He means designed by an intelligent designer." Creationists are all the same in the sense that they all say that universe was intelligently designed. I trust you agree. If not, perhaps you can say why you disagree.

There is never a need to make your point unless you want to be believed. If you don't mind having your beliefs disregarded, there is no need to support them.

It looks like you're confusing abiogenesis and biological evolution again. The origin of life is explained by the laws of chemistry just as the laws of biological evolution explain the origin of the tree of life from a common ancestral population. Have you studied organic chemistry, physical chemistry, or biochemistry? When the proper constituents are in proximity in the proper environment, exothermic reactions proceed spontaneously. Synthetic chemists use this understanding to build chemicals, how to convert an aldehyde to a carboxylic acid or vice versa or how to methylate an amino acid.

Meiosis. Apart from twinning, every daughter cell is unique

That means that either an intelligent designer was down there whipping off snowflakes creatively, or that snowflake design is sensitive to local initial conditions, which are likely never identical.

It is NOT assumed that intelligent design was not involved, and yes, we cannot know that the universe wasn't intelligently designed. That seems to matter more to you than to critical thinkers, who are content to treat the universe as undesigned until there is a good reason to think otherwise.

I don't believe that. There is no good evidence that any god exists or has ever interacted with man.

Use of the word spiritual doesn't justify calling imagined things real. Likewise with the word supernatural. Referring to it doesn't make it a thing. Both are linguistic sleights-of-hand used to explain why nobody can find what others have imagined and have claimed exist somewhere but don't actually exist.

Yes, and as you read, it's something I and many others have labored to avoid. As I said, "In my opinion, belief by faith is a logical error." That academic tradition I referred to seeks to identify which ideas are correct and the methods to elucidate them. That's a summum bonum in liberal studies. The critical thinker strives to accumulate as many correct ideas as possible while avoiding belief in wrong and not-even-wrong ideas, so naturally, he attempts to avoid making logical errors. Leaps of faith produce non sequiturs.

So how do we identify correct ideas and distinguish them from incorrect ones? If an idea is the sound conclusion of an argument, it can generally be demonstrated to successfully predict outcomes. If it does that, it can be called correct.

Furthermore, a correct idea is falsifiable but is never falsified. That's why we call the theory of evolution correct beyond reasonable doubt. It's a sound conclusion derived from interpreting data, it makes accurate predictions, and it hasn't been falsified.

And that's why we have debate (dialectic). Two or more critical thinkers attempt to falsify one another's claims and arguments, the last plausible, unrebutted position being considered provisionally correct until and unless someone can come along and rebut/falsify it.

That's also a plank in that academic philosophy and culture, one which the creationists and others seem unaware. When somebody makes a sound argument that is not successfully rebutted, he's forfeited the debate. If he's part of that culture, he recognizes and acknowledges that fact, and is happy to report that he's been educated. If he's not, he considers the interaction a draw, unaware of those rules or how he's perceived for violating them.

Debate is like a game of ping-pong when two competent debaters are present, but when one isn't a critical thinker, the volley generally consists of a serve (initial claim), a return (rebuttal), and that's it (no acknowledgement of the rebuttal or counterargument to it). And since the returner has made the last plausible, unrebutted argument, his position has prevailed. That's also how it works in a courtroom. Attorneys offer mutually exclusive theories, each offering evidence and an interpretation of its significance in confirming guilt or innocence, each trying to refute the other until an argument remains which cannot be successfully rebutted, and then a verdict.

That's also how scientific peer review works. Along with pragmatism, or a demonstration that an idea works, it's the academic standard for deciding the truth and correctness of ideas.

Maybe I'm missing something, but are your posts usually this long answering several people in the same post?