How do you detect "design"?

[YoursTrue]

Thank you. I'm glad I found a format that works for you.

Unfortunately, none of that can be addressed properly except in paragraphs, so I'll have to decline answering with more than a yes.

Oh. Of course you could start, but that's ok.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is evidence that life got to its present state on its own. Believers in ID cannot even properly define their terminology much less find any evidence for their beliefs. That is why it is only pseudoscience at best. You still have not learned why the DI lost in the Dover Trial.


Yes, we can never have all of the data. But it has to explain all of the existing data. That is infinitely better than an idea that is without any support at all.

One of the reason that people like Behe are properly called IDiots is that they know how to make a proper scientific hypothesis. They know how to form an idea so that it is testable. In fact when Behe first presented his idea he did so in a testable manner. Unfortunately for him it failed that test. So why don't these people that have the ability to put an idea into a scientific form do what they have the training to do?

No, that is inaccurate. The claims of IDiots such as Behe should be testable. You are implying something else now. You are implying that gods are very sneaky and try to hide their existence. How much sense does that make?

May I ask what tests are performed to show that RNA came from a "chaotic soup"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm going by what I see scientists say. Although I do believe God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Scientists don't know for sure how DNA or RNA came about. They think that it happened from a chaotic soup. Do you think that means they are sure that's how it happened?

They are not sure. None of them have declared that they know now life arose. That is why there are scientists studying this right now. They are testing nature, they are testing complex chemistry, to see how things went from the state of amino acids and even some complex molecules such as RNA existing naturally to a self replicating molecules and the ability to pass them on down.

Do you understand that RNA can form naturally? Here is just one article on it:

Spontaneous Formation of RNA Strands, Peptidyl RNA, and Cofactors

How the biochemical machinery evolved from simple precursors is an open question. Here we show that ribonucleotides and amino acids condense to peptidyl RNAs in the absence of enzymes under conditions established for genetic copying. Untemplated formation ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But it is a good sized leap to go from the existence of RNA and the existence of self replicating RNA. But finding that RNA itself can self form was one of the big steps in hopefully solving abiogenesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

May I ask what tests are performed to show that RNA came from a "chaotic soup"?

I just posted an article on the topic. That is far from the only article on this topic. Here is one on how RNA can form on volcanic glass from a popular source. You could always track down the paper that it was based upon, but this one is far easier to understand:

Spontaneous Formation Of RNA On Volcanic Glass Could Explain Life's Origins

Basaltic glass catalyzes nucleoside triphosphates to form molecules of RNA up to 300 molecules long under conditions similar to the early Earth. Using previous research showing nucleotide bases exist in some meteorites, and that conditions on early Earth could turn these bases into triphosphate.

www.iflscience.com

I am sure that there are other ways that it can form besides the two examples given.

 

[Pogo]

no idea on what are you talking about

That's ok, I didn't think you would.

 

[Pogo]

He seems to lack a sense of humor. That he did not recognize Monty Python is very telling.

But very typical of the linear thinking of the creationist, while we find humor in even silly word equivocations, they are seemingly unable to think beyond the one thing they "know". Whether this is fear of apostasy or just an intellectual limitation I don't know.

 

[Pogo]

I'm going by what I see scientists say. Although I do believe God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Scientists don't know for sure how DNA or RNA came about. They think that it happened from a chaotic soup. Do you think that means they are sure that's how it happened?

Can you say/understand God of the Gaps?

 

[Copernicus]

I'm going by what I see scientists say. Although I do believe God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Scientists don't know for sure how DNA or RNA came about. They think that it happened from a chaotic soup. Do you think that means they are sure that's how it happened?

You start out saying that you go by what scientists say. Then you interject with a reference to your religious beliefs, which presumably have nothing to do with what scientists say. Then you say that scientists "don't know for sure" how DNA and RNA came about, without acknowledging that they have some pretty good ideas on that subject. Then you mention the "chaotic soup" metaphor, apparently not understanding how well-grounded chaos theory is in explaining the emergence of ordered patterns in chaotic causal interactions. IOW, you end up not really going by what scientists say.

But let me answer your final question, which sounds more rhetorical than one you want a serious answer to. The answer is yes. I think that's how it happened, and I think that scientists have a lot of very good factual data to back up that conclusion. They have observed the chaotic soup of organic molecules the exist in nature, and they have discovered molecules that appear to represent precursors to RNA molecules.

The RNA World and the Origins of Life​

To fully understand the processes occurring in present-day living cells, we need to consider how they arose in evolution. The most fundamental of all such problems is the expression of hereditary information, which today requires extraordinarily complex machinery and proceeds from DNA to protein through an RNA intermediate. How did this machinery arise? One view is that an RNA world existed on Earth before modern cells arose (Figure 6-91). According to this hypothesis, RNA stored both genetic information and catalyzed the chemical reactions in primitive cells. Only later in evolutionary time did DNA take over as the genetic material and proteins become the major catalyst and structural component of cells. If this idea is correct, then the transition out of the RNA world was never complete; as we have seen in this chapter, RNA still catalyzes several fundamental reactions in modern-day cells, which can be viewed as molecular fossils of an earlier world

 

[YoursTrue]

They are not sure. None of them have declared that they know now life arose. That is why there are scientists studying this right now. They are testing nature, they are testing complex chemistry, to see how things went from the state of amino acids and even some complex molecules such as RNA existing naturally to a self replicating molecules and the ability to pass them on down.

Do you understand that RNA can form naturally? Here is just one article on it:

Spontaneous Formation of RNA Strands, Peptidyl RNA, and Cofactors

How the biochemical machinery evolved from simple precursors is an open question. Here we show that ribonucleotides and amino acids condense to peptidyl RNAs in the absence of enzymes under conditions established for genetic copying. Untemplated formation ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

But it is a good sized leap to go from the existence of RNA and the existence of self replicating RNA. But finding that RNA itself can self form was one of the big steps in hopefully solving abiogenesis.

You start out saying that you go by what scientists say. Then you interject with a reference to your religious beliefs, which presumably have nothing to do with what scientists say. Then you say that scientists "don't know for sure" how DNA and RNA came about, without acknowledging that they have some pretty good ideas on that subject. Then you mention the "chaotic soup" metaphor, apparently not understanding how well-grounded chaos theory is in explaining the emergence of ordered patterns in chaotic causal interactions. IOW, you end up not really going by what scientists say.

But let me answer your final question, which sounds more rhetorical than one you want a serious answer to. The answer is yes. I think that's how it happened, and I think that scientists have a lot of very good factual data to back up that conclusion. They have observed the chaotic soup of organic molecules the exist in nature, and they have discovered molecules that appear to represent precursors to RNA molecules.

The RNA World and the Origins of Life​

I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Are you saying I'm not allowed to express my viewpoints, or that it is "scientifically" unfounded? If you do, scientists have not found exactly how life started, whether by a "chaotic soup" making RNA strands that kept dissolving until at least something finally adhered and multiplied.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Are you saying I'm not allowed to express my viewpoints, or that it is "scientifically" unfounded? If you do, scientists have not found exactly how life started, whether by a "chaotic soup" making RNA strands that kept dissolving until at least something finally adhered and multiplied.

You can do that as much as you like. But if you make obvious errors people will correct you. Do you think that a teacher in a school is doing a toddler that keeps insisting that 2 + 2 = 5 and then uses that to justify taking more candy than he is allotted a favor? There are times and places to correct people when they say something that is clearly wrong. It is when you go so far as to claim that God is a liar that you are corrected.

 

[YoursTrue]

You can do that as much as you like. But if you make obvious errors people will correct you. Do you think that a teacher in a school is doing a toddler that keeps insisting that 2 + 2 = 5 and then uses that to justify taking more candy than he is allotted a favor? There are times and places to correct people when they say something that is clearly wrong. It is when you go so far as to claim that God is a liar that you are corrected.

Again -- and I repeat -- there are websites about evolution that say scientists "think" this is how RNA started. They don't know. But that's what they think. That doesn't mean that's how it happened. (does it?)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again -- and I repeat -- there are websites about evolution that say scientists "think" this is how RNA started. They don't know. But that's what they think. That doesn't mean that's how it happened. (does it?)

Yes, because there were multiple ways that it could have formed naturally. Why is that so hard to understand? There is more than one way that RNA could have first formed. So we will probably never know exactly how it first formed. Heck, as I have pointed out before the first life could even have been formed by magic by a god. You know, like you believe in.

Scientists always use the terms "could have" "may have" "probably" when it involves anything that is not directly observed even if the evidence only strongly supports one. Scientists have to keep an open mind. That is an asset. It does not indicate "doubt" it indicates that if they are shown to be wrong they will not whine and complain.

 

[Pogo]

I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Are you saying I'm not allowed to express my viewpoints, or that it is "scientifically" unfounded? If you do, scientists have not found exactly how life started, whether by a "chaotic soup" making RNA strands that kept dissolving until at least something finally adhered and multiplied.

No the rational conclusions shared by the majority of the world and probably all theistic scientists is that they are working on how their God did what he did. It is only a small minority that insist on a solution that flies in the face of everything we have learned since the Bible was compiled.
It is not your first sentence that is at issue, it is your insistence that you know better than everyone else who has studied it how it might have been done. I think I remember that hubris is considered a sin.

 

[F1fan]

I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning.

But we don't know if any God exists, so we can't say that the universe was created by one. Where is your evidence that a God exists, and then that it created the universe?

Are you saying I'm not allowed to express my viewpoints, or that it is "scientifically" unfounded?

Sure. But if you are going to doubt evidence and conclusions in science how did you ever come think any God exists, and that it created anything? Where's the evidence that you demand for science?

If you do, scientists have not found exactly how life started, whether by a "chaotic soup" making RNA strands that kept dissolving until at least something finally adhered and multiplied.

Scientists have found how all the building blocks of life can form naturally. So far, science can't find your God. So science is more plausible than your beliefs. There's a reason why evolution is taught in ever public school in the USA. And every school in Europe. And in Asia. And in Austrailia. And in Africa. No first world nation teaches creationism to its citizens.

 

[YoursTrue]

But now-- "The RNA world is a hypothetical stage in the evolutionary history of life on Earth, in which self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. [1]The term also refers to the hypothesis that posits the existence of this stage."
What? hypothetical stage? RNA world - Wikipedia.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, because there were multiple ways that it could have formed naturally. Why is that so hard to understand? There is more than one way that RNA could have first formed. So we will probably never know exactly how it first formed. Heck, as I have pointed out before the first life could even have been formed by magic by a god. You know, like you believe in.

Scientists always use the terms "could have" "may have" "probably" when it involves anything that is not directly observed even if the evidence only strongly supports one. Scientists have to keep an open mind. That is an asset. It does not indicate "doubt" it indicates that if they are shown to be wrong they will not whine and complain.

It's not hard for me to understand that scientists do not know how RNA could have formed. But thank you.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, because there were multiple ways that it could have formed naturally. Why is that so hard to understand? There is more than one way that RNA could have first formed. So we will probably never know exactly how it first formed. Heck, as I have pointed out before the first life could even have been formed by magic by a god. You know, like you believe in.

Scientists always use the terms "could have" "may have" "probably" when it involves anything that is not directly observed even if the evidence only strongly supports one. Scientists have to keep an open mind. That is an asset. It does not indicate "doubt" it indicates that if they are shown to be wrong they will not whine and complain.

You keep using the word magic. I do not ascribe the creation of the heavens and the earth by God to be by magic, and neither does the Bible. Is that your postulate that God must have caused the heavens and the earth to come into existence by magic if, in fact, there IS a God as described in the Bible, which I know you don't believe in, but is that how you figure it if in fact,

 

[F1fan]

You keep using the word magic. I do not ascribe the creation of the heavens and the earth by God to be by magic, and neither does the Bible. Is that your postulate that God must have caused the heavens and the earth to come into existence by magic

What God exists? You haven't shown us that any God actually exists. Nor have you explained how a God can create anything.

if, in fact, there IS a God as described in the Bible, which I know you don't believe in, but is that how you figure it if in fact,

It's not a fact until you demonstrate God exists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, because there were multiple ways that it could have formed naturally. Why is that so hard to understand? There is more than one way that RNA could have first formed. So we will probably never know exactly how it first formed. Heck, as I have pointed out before the first life could even have been formed by magic by a god. You know, like you believe in.

Scientists always use the terms "could have" "may have" "probably" when it involves anything that is not directly observed even if the evidence only strongly supports one. Scientists have to keep an open mind. That is an asset. It does not indicate "doubt" it indicates that if they are shown to be wrong they will not whine and complain.

As I continue reading, I see the following statement, "If the evolutionary speculations about RNA outlined above are correct, these early cells would also have differed fundamentally from the cells we know today in having their hereditary information stored in RNA rather than in DNA "
"If the evolutionary speculations about RNA are correct..." If the speculations are correct. I see. If they are correct then maybe the rest is correct, too. The RNA World and the Origins of Life - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf.

 

[Copernicus]

I do believe that God created the heavens and the earth in the beginning. Are you saying I'm not allowed to express my viewpoints, or that it is "scientifically" unfounded? If you do, scientists have not found exactly how life started, whether by a "chaotic soup" making RNA strands that kept dissolving until at least something finally adhered and multiplied.

No, I said that your expressing your religious beliefs at that point had nothing to do with what scientists say and that you remark was unconnected to what scientists say. Your religious opinions are scientifically unfounded, AFAICT. If they can create RNA strings through artificial means, that certainly goes a long way to validating the claim that such molecules arose naturally without any miraculous intervention by a deity. That's what is called a "proof of concept" demonstration.