Intelligent Design???

[shunyadragon]

These environments are known to exist based on the rocks found in the time period life arose.

From: The Origin of Oxygen in Earth's Atmosphere

The role of metal ions in chemical evolution: Polymerization of alanine and glycine in a cation-exchanged clay environment

The effect of the exchangeable cation on the condensation of glycine and alanine was investigated using a series of homoionic bentonites. A cycling procedure of drying, warming and wetting was employed. Peptide bond formation was observed, and the effectiveness of metal ions to catalyze the condensation was Cu2+ > Ni2+ ≈ Zn2+ > Na+. Glycine showed 6% of the monomer incorporated into oligomers with the largest detected being the pentamer. Alanine showed less peptide bond formation (a maximum of 2%) and only the dimer was observed.

 

[shunyadragon]

From: Why are Hydrothermal Systems Proposed as Plausible Environments for the Origin of Life?

Why are Hydrothermal Systems Proposed as Plausible Environments for the Origin of Life?

The paradigm change in geology by the general acceptance of plate tectonics around two decades aga has brought about an increased interest in geothermal processes at plate boundaries. Thus the enhanced research activity at spreading centers led to the discovery of large spectacular submarine hydrothermal systems of global significance to ocean chemistry and geochemistry. Among the best known such areas are the Galapagos Ridge (Corliss et al., 1979), the East Pacific Rise at 21°N (Francheteau et al., 1979; Spiess et al., 1980), and the Juan de Fuca Ridge (Chase et al., 1985). Rona and coworkers (1983) have compiled the early landmark studies of hydrothermal processes at seafloor spreading centers. Recently Edmond (1991) also reviewed U.S. research on oceanic hydrothermal chemistry for the period 1987-1990. The spectacular nature of marine hydrothermal systems with features such as ‘black smokers’, ‘white smokers’ and peculiar ecosystems that are independent of sunlight as a source of reducing power has focused much interest on hydrothermal processes for the explanation of an array of geochemical processes and phenomena. Hydrothermal systems located at global plate spreading centers soon attracted the attention of geochemists as viable environments for chemical evolution and the origin of life (cf. Ingmanson and Dowler, 1981).

 

[Ellen Brown]

Have been dealt with by those in the field. Really, I try and keep up, but maybe I missed this. Who, and how did they deal with these issues ?

The truth of the matter is that there will never be a point where ¨ ongoing scientific research ¨ will end, and for many this is the holy grail itself, ongoing research= a possibility= never conceding that science has failed= never having to consider an alternative.

Science is a continuously developing story. Many of the religious are fond of using their belief as a put down to those unschooled in it. After what the religious have done to me, I wonder why I bother. Except, the contemporaries of Jesus murdered him, so who am I as his younger sister to expect better? Why do you judge others, when you know that you will be judged?

 

[Ellen Brown]

From: Why are Hydrothermal Systems Proposed as Plausible Environments for the Origin of Life?

Why are Hydrothermal Systems Proposed as Plausible Environments for the Origin of Life?

The paradigm change in geology by the general acceptance of plate tectonics around two decades aga has brought about an increased interest in geothermal processes at plate boundaries. Thus the enhanced research activity at spreading centers led to the discovery of large spectacular submarine hydrothermal systems of global significance to ocean chemistry and geochemistry. Among the best known such areas are the Galapagos Ridge (Corliss et al., 1979), the East Pacific Rise at 21°N (Francheteau et al., 1979; Spiess et al., 1980), and the Juan de Fuca Ridge (Chase et al., 1985). Rona and coworkers (1983) have compiled the early landmark studies of hydrothermal processes at seafloor spreading centers. Recently Edmond (1991) also reviewed U.S. research on oceanic hydrothermal chemistry for the period 1987-1990. The spectacular nature of marine hydrothermal systems with features such as ‘black smokers’, ‘white smokers’ and peculiar ecosystems that are independent of sunlight as a source of reducing power has focused much interest on hydrothermal processes for the explanation of an array of geochemical processes and phenomena. Hydrothermal systems located at global plate spreading centers soon attracted the attention of geochemists as viable environments for chemical evolution and the origin of life (cf. Ingmanson and Dowler, 1981).

I don't know much about this field, and recently found out about Tardigrades. Did they develop in these springs, or did they come in from space?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't know much about this field, and recently found out about Tardigrades. Did they develop in these springs, or did they come in from space?

No. Retrograde are not from space. They share a common ancestor with other forms of life. They are billions of years away from those springs. I just saw this yesterday. It may answer some of your questions:

 

[Ellen Brown]

No. Retrograde are not from space. They share a common ancestor with other forms of life. They are billions of years away from those springs. I just saw this yesterday. It may answer some of your questions:

Hmmm. I just saw an article that said Astronauts found Tardigrades in space, though I do not know if the information is reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmmm. I just saw an article that said Astronauts found Tardigrades in space, though I do not know if the information is reliable.

I would like to see that. Retrograde generally need some source of water. Existing ones may have been brought to space and they may not have died. But they cannot reproduce in space. The video does give some of their evolutionary history.

 

[exchemist]

The thread is on intelligent design. So, your position is it happened, though no one can demonstrate how, and in fact science itself in a large number of ways says it could not have happened. No matter, it happened, end of discussion. Close the damn thread, I don´t want to hear anything else.

My advice to you is to stop posting and ignore the thread.

Truth is truth, whether it is scientific or not. Your response is a familiar one. I have herd it many times before. Don´t confuse me with facts, I know what I know, and thatś it. Strong faith, indeed

The point is that science looks for natural explanations.

Science does not in any way say life could not have arisen naturally, as you falsely claim. You have no evidence that it says that. The most you can do recite a number of the well-known difficulties or problems, none of which rules out a natural origin for life. If any of them did, nobody would be studying the subject. But they are, evidently, with interesting results and insights every year.

It would seem to follow that any person who claims science says life could not have arisen naturally must imagine there is a conspiracy on the part of the science community, to waste time and resource studying something they know to be impossible. I put it to you that that is a ridiculous thing to claim.

 

[Ellen Brown]

The point is that science looks for natural explanations.

Science does not in any way say life could not have arisen naturally, as you falsely claim. You have no evidence that it says that. The most you can do recite a number of the well-known difficulties or problems, none of which rules out a natural origin for life. If any of them did, nobody would be studying the subject. But they are, evidently, with interesting results and insights every year.

It would seem to follow that any person who claims science says life could not have arisen naturally must imagine there is a conspiracy on the part of the science community, to waste time and resource studying something they know to be impossible. I put it to you that that is a ridiculous thing to claim.

In my life I have seen many things that someone said was impossible, and then it happened. I was born before we could regularly travel faster than sound, before the first Heart Transplant, before Polio was stopped, raised in a home where women did not go to College, where abortion often led to death, when many people thought we could not go to the Moon, then there was Sputnik.

Nowadays, some people just need to pull their fingers out and get over themselves

 

[exchemist]

In my life I have seen many things that someone said was impossible, and then it happened. I was born before we could regularly travel faster than sound, before the first Heart Transplant, before Polio was stopped, raised in a home where women did not go to College, where abortion often led to death, when many people thought we could not go to the Moon, then there was Sputnik.

Nowadays, some people just need to pull their fingers out and get over themselves

Well, there you go.

And even if and when there is a model for the natural origin of life, it will in no way rule out the idea of a creator behind it all, if that is what a person chooses to believe.

 

[shunyadragon]

I don't know much about this field, and recently found out about Tardigrades. Did they develop in these springs, or did they come in from space?

I don't know much about this field, and recently found out about Tardigrades. Did they develop in these springs, or did they come in from space?

Tardigrades are an ancient arthropod that indeed evolved on earth. I call them the tiny eight legged tanks that inhabits virtually every environment on earth from the deepest oceans to the highest mountains. They do require water, but have a remarkable ability to hibernate in a complete inactive state that can survive for long periods in virtually any environment.

They were not 'found' in outer space. They were taken in orbit as part of a research project, and it was found that even in the vacuum and irradiation of space the tardigrades can survive in a deep hibernation state.

From: https://www.google.com/search?q=tar...69i61j69i57.6997j1j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

In 2007, scientists discovered that these microscopic critters can survive an extended stay in the cold, irradiated vacuum of outer space. A European team of researchers sent a group of living tardigrades to orbit the earth on the outside of a FOTON-M3 rocket for ten days.

They are of great interest in evolution, because they are and example of 'gene piracy' where organisms take genes from other species, such as bacteria.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, so I am ignorant. Classic response. Simple life forms aren´t the issue, how the came into being from nonliving substances is. You asked for evidence, I provided it. I will provide much more that shows the virtual impossibility of abiogenesis.

You did not address the evidence, you chose to diminish the messenger, once again, a common response when one chooses not to try and refute the data.

And we provide counter-evidence, including results that show your proposed obstacles to abiogenesis don't actually block things in the real world.

The issue is far from settled and yes, there will continue to be research for quite some time. Like I said, until we really understand the conditions in which life *can* form, we cannot use the development of life as evidence for an intelligence.

This is a common issue in, say, archeology. We find an artifact and we need to determine whether it was natural or caused by an intelligence. Among other ways to approach this problem: are there known intelligent agents that could have produced the artifact? What natural processes can produce something *similar* to the artifact? What intelligent processes can produce something similar to the artifact? After these questions have been addressed, it *may* be possible to say an intelligence was involved.

In the case of the formation of life, we know of no intelligence acting at the appropriate time. We do not know what natural processes can produce life, if any. And we do not know type of life intelligent agents can produce. Again, until these are answered, no conclusion of an intelligent agent is reasonable.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Life has had close to three billion years to write that thirty volume set.

And now you are making the error of assuming that ancient life needs as much DNA as modern life. There is no reason to assume this. In fact you should see that the earliest of life would have had a very simple genome.

How simple? Only some 100,000 "characters" in length?

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no possible comparison. Nothing in the combinations the monkey's can type on typewriters is constrained by the laws of nature, as evolution is in the evolution of the formation and mutation of DNA over time.

Correct. Evolution is constrained, therefore, more difficult/unlikely. Great point.

 

[shmogie]

Let me guess. You found a lot of quotes indicating we do not know something about them too.

No, but I know how their presence or absence would most likely affect the formation of polymers.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct. Evolution is constrained, therefore, more difficult/unlikely. Great point.

On the contrary, it is constrained so if something is possible it is more likely than a 'random search'. THAT is the whole point.

We *know* life is possible. We *know* life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. So we *know* that natural constraints do not make life impossible. And *that* means that those constraints make the development of life much more likely than a simple random search (monkeys on a keyboard).

 

[shmogie]

And we provide counter-evidence, including results that show your proposed obstacles to abiogenesis don't actually block things in the real world.

The issue is far from settled and yes, there will continue to be research for quite some time. Like I said, until we really understand the conditions in which life *can* form, we cannot use the development of life as evidence for an intelligence.

This is a common issue in, say, archeology. We find an artifact and we need to determine whether it was natural or caused by an intelligence. Among other ways to approach this problem: are there known intelligent agents that could have produced the artifact? What natural processes can produce something *similar* to the artifact? What intelligent processes can produce something similar to the artifact? After these questions have been addressed, it *may* be possible to say an intelligence was involved.

In the case of the formation of life, we know of no intelligence acting at the appropriate time. We do not know what natural processes can produce life, if any. And we do not know type of life intelligent agents can produce. Again, until these are answered, no conclusion of an intelligent agent is reasonable.

What is reasonable ? It appears that there are only two options regarding the creation of life, and everything else. Either the big bang was the result of an unknown and unknowable natural process, or it was created by an intelligently guided process. Either life was created from non life, by some unknown natural process, or it was created by an intelligent agent.


To someone who would be purely objective, with no biases, unfamiliar with science or theology ( an unfindable person) both options would be absurd.

So I guess you pick your absurdity, based upon the perspective through which you have decided you will select.

The conclusion establishing reasonableness is up to the person deciding, you cannot choose for me or vice versa

My proposed evidence that you say hasn´t been shown to be a hindrance to abiogenesisis is totally incorrect.

You haven refuted by evidence what I have posted, you simply say it has been refuted, not the same thing at all, and I have barely begun

 

[metis]

Let me just say that with everything we seemingly have experienced, both scientifically and personally, the entire universe and probably everything in it, has been in a state of flux from it's beginning through today. If something was totally static, that would be the item quite out of the ordinary.

However, this neither negates nor proves theistic creation, so my drift tends to be "Whatever happened, happened". Nor do I lose any sleep over not knowing as there's myriads of things that I know little or nothing about-- just ask my wife.

 

[shmogie]

On the contrary, it is constrained so if something is possible it is more likely than a 'random search'. THAT is the whole point.

We *know* life is possible. We *know* life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. So we *know* that natural constraints do not make life impossible. And *that* means that those constraints make the development of life much more likely than a simple random search (monkeys on a keyboard).

How do you KNOW abiogenesis is possible , other than by the tenant that all things are possible ? It is possible that a race of humans deep in the amazon have wings and can fly.

Life is more than a complex collection of chemical reactions. It is a complex collection of chemical reactions, that are controlled by INFORMATION to create a functioning, reproducing organism.

Information is the encoded symbolically represented message conveying expected action and intended purpose of two or more possibilities

All life uses information in DNA to exist. This information is contained in long strands of encoded bits of information in exactly the right order to tell the cell to operate in all facets at the right time.

A simplified explanation, but if needed I can go into greater detail.

The point ? Where did the information come from that programmed that first organism to nourish itself and utilize some form of food, absorb and utilize oxygen or other gasses, reproduce, etc., etc., etc. ?

Please show me the research that solves the information problem

 

[Subduction Zone]

How simple? Only some 100,000 "characters" in length?

What makes you think that it was that long?