Intelligent Design???

[Polymath257]

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.

On the contrary, the opposite of a natural process is NOT an intelligent agent. You present a false dichotomy. A non-natural process (what in the world could that even mean?) does not have to be an intelligent agent. In fact, all intelligent agents we know are part of nature, so that would strongly suggest otherwise.

The same criticism of your argument holds for the Big Bang. it is quite possible that any natural process is knowable (we just don't know yet). And, again, the opposite of a natural process is NOT an intelligent agent.

So your argument has some issues.

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

In fact, the whole notion of a non-natural process is the absurd point. To be a process means it is natural (subject to some laws in how it can happen). We have given you links to show that your proposed hindrances to abiogenesis are simply not relevant to the actual history of life. We have shown that, in fact, the proposed hindrances are fairly easy to circumvent and in ways that would be completely possible on the early Earth.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

And that information arises naturally from the chemical properties of the matter of which life is made. Information isn't something supernatural. It is a direct result the causal aspects of nature.

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

OOPS! No intention is evident. Information is simply a physical thing or process that can come from a limited number of causes (and thereby gives information about those causes).

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.

No need. We all understand this.

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

Information comes from chemical structure. it really is that simple. The natural affinities of the amino acids, the nucleic acids, etc are what provides information.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you comparing DNA and life to a sonnet of some hundred words? Even Dawkins's Blind Watchmaker says the nucleus of every cell has a digitally organized database larger than the thirty-volume set of Encyclopedia Britannica!

No. YOU are. You brought that up as an analogy. Now you're accusing everyone else of the comparison. Does that mean you find your analogy inadequate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

A not altogether unreasonable demand. And if we drop the false appeal to the undefined term "INFORMATION" very easy to answer. A problem like this is too big to solve all at once. Many problems in science are of this sort. So instead it is broken down into separate problems which are attacked and solved as our technology improves. Almost every problem in abiogenesis has been shown to have an answer in the natural world and the few remaining ones appear to be solvable. That is why it is thought to be possible. In fact some of the problems have more than one solution so we may never know the exact path that life took when it first arose.

Way back in the fifties creationists thought that "organic" molecules had to have an organic origin. They thought that amino acids could not self form. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that to be wrong. When it was thought that the atmosphere used in the Miller-Urey experiment may have been wrong it was run again, and again, and again. With quite a few different early earth atmospheres. It kept producing amino acids. And that was almost 70 years ago. Science has advanced quit a ways since then. Every experiment ultimately shows that life could have risen by itself, that is why most scientists not only think that it is possible, but that it is what happened.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

That is not the meaning of constrained in this context. When compared to the Discovery Institute of the use of unconstrained random probability, which is totally artificial, dishonest and unrealistic. The probabiity constrained by natural law outcomes of cause and effect is a much much higher more realistic probability, of the sequence of the outcome of cause and effect relationships in naturally caused evolution.

 

[Jose Fly]

Life is more than a complex collection of chemical reactions.

Really? Then please point to something in the cell that is not chemistry.

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.

Yet all that "information" is chemistry. If not, what else is it?

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

So your "point" is "either show me how the first life on earth came to be, or else it's all just blind faith"? Is that about right?

 

[dfnj]

Well, I don't know how anyone can prove the overall design was done by an intelligent being, but having two genders with regards to sex was a pretty cool idea!

 

[shmogie]

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.

I never said that science says anything but that it could and did happen. How, science doesn´t know.

I simply am citing evidence, that makes the scientific task extremely difficult.

You wrongly state that by your faith these problems aren´t problems at all, with no evidence to back up the claim.

problems with this hypothesis are cumulative. they add up. They are adding up.

You tell me it happened, but haven´t a clue how. Slight glimmerings aren´t the final answer, not by a long, long shot

Your straw men are irrelevant

 

[shunyadragon]

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.

It has been determined possible by many years of research base don objective verifiable evidence.

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.

Yes controlled by the laws of nature.

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

Encoded based on the laws of nature.

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.

No it is not in exactly the right order. It evolved to the optimal order for the survival of life and the species.

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. ?

Easy the Laws of Nature.

Please show me the research that solves the information problem

You unfortunately expect others to spoon feed you the research you refuse to search and read yourself. You have even refused to use the correct science terminology, and acknowledge the research literature already cited. Each of the research articles already cited present part of the many falsified hypothesis that solve the information problems.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, I don't know how anyone can prove the overall design was done by an intelligent being, but having two genders with regards to sex was a pretty cool idea!

Cool, yes, but remarkably varied in the real world.

For example, it is not uncommon for fish to change genders during their lives. Often, the change between genders is determined by temperature or the number of other fish of each gender.In other words, gender is determined by the environment, not by genetics.

Many other species are hermaphroditic: they have both types of sex organs at the same time. Earthworms, for example, have this property.

There are species of lizards with only females.

And, if you go to fungi, there are species with *hundreds* of genders.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

'You know?!?!?! On what basis of education, and citation of peer reviewed research do you know? You have failed to present any peer review research to support your assertions.

 

[shunyadragon]

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

How do you know the length?

 

[shmogie]

Really? Then please point to something in the cell that is not chemistry.


Yet all that "information" is chemistry. If not, what else is it?


So your "point" is "either show me how the first life on earth came to be, or else it's all just blind faith"? Is that about right?

Everything in a cell is based upon chemical reactions. Nevertheless, the operating information is based upon encoded instructions, that can be read by the cell and the instructions are followed.

My point is that there are a myriad of problems that can be identified and are unsolved with the hypothesis, problems that, at this point, cast serious doubt in the objective mind.

Blind faith ? Not for me to say. Someone who rigidly locks themselves into one belief structure and refuses to consider another structure is operating by blind faith.

Lest you accuse me of having blind faith because I am a Christian, I have done the atheist, abiogenesis thing. I have a good education, though not primarily in biology, but I had a lot of exposure to it.

I have done due diligence

 

[Jose Fly]

Everything in a cell is based upon chemical reactions.

Exactly. So since everything that goes on in a cell is chemistry, it's not at all unreasonable to propose that life first arose via chemistry.

My point is that there are a myriad of problems that can be identified and are unsolved with the hypothesis, problems that, at this point, cast serious doubt in the objective mind.

Blind faith ? Not for me to say. Someone who rigidly locks themselves into one belief structure and refuses to consider another structure is operating by blind faith.

Lest you accuse me of having blind faith because I am a Christian, I have done the atheist, abiogenesis thing. I have a good education, though not primarily in biology, but I had a lot of exposure to it.

I have done due diligence

So your point is to note that the origin of the first life on earth is a mystery that is being researched. Ok.....therefore, what?

 

[Polymath257]

Everything in a cell is based upon chemical reactions. Nevertheless, the operating information is based upon encoded instructions, that can be read by the cell and the instructions are followed.

But that information is chemical in nature. The reading of that information is done chemically. The way those 'instructions' are followed is chemical. It isn't that life is *based* of chemistry, it *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions. Furthermore, the 'information systems' actively participate in that chemistry: they are not separate from it and unaffected by it. The information itself is *generated* by the chemistry.

My point is that there are a myriad of problems that can be identified and are unsolved with the hypothesis, problems that, at this point, cast serious doubt in the objective mind.

Except that your 'myriad problems' have not proven to be actually problematic when investigated further. Information isn't some mysterious thing: it is a product of the chemistry.

Blind faith ? Not for me to say. Someone who rigidly locks themselves into one belief structure and refuses to consider another structure is operating by blind faith.

Lest you accuse me of having blind faith because I am a Christian, I have done the atheist, abiogenesis thing. I have a good education, though not primarily in biology, but I had a lot of exposure to it.

I have done due diligence

Truthfully, it doesn't look like you have. Are you familiar with the work of Sidney Fox back in the 70's? if not, you have certainly not done due diligence. Are you familiar with the concept of the RNA world and why it seems like such was a predecessor of the current DNA world? have you looked into the ways that amino acids or nucleic acids can be polymerized in natural environments? Do you understand that a great deal of the 'information' in biological systems is based on simple attraction or repulsion to water? Can you identify the family of chemicals that does the translation between nucleic acids and amino acids? And why that is relevant to the RNA world hypothesis?

 

[shmogie]

'You know?!?!?! On what basis of education, and citation of peer reviewed research do you know? You have failed to present any peer review research to support your assertions.

I see, so pretty basic non refutable information found in textbooks and science journals and popular scientific books must be peer reviewed ?

Please, it has been a long time since I was in college, and frankly, I don´t think peer review is required to make a point in this forum, especially since the prevailing sport here is to prove someone wrong.

You are playing a criticism card that has a good sound to it.

If I mentioned gravity, or photons, or an open or closed universe, would you demand peer reviewed material ?

No one has refuted so far any of what I posted.

Feel free to have at it. Peer reviewed refutation would be of greatest value

 

[shmogie]

Exactly. So since everything that goes on in a cell is chemistry, it's not at all unreasonable to propose that life first arose via chemistry.


So your point is to note that the origin of the first life on earth is a mystery that is being researched. Ok.....therefore, what?

Therefore, after a century of research, science still doesn´t know how abiogenesis came about. Therefore, those who say it did can no more prove it than I can ID, or divine creation, or flying blue platypuses who have physics degrees. Therefore their position has no more merit than mine.

I didn´t start this thread

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never said that science says anything but that it could and did happen. How, science doesn´t know.

I simply am citing evidence, that makes the scientific task extremely difficult.

You wrongly state that by your faith these problems aren´t problems at all, with no evidence to back up the claim.

problems with this hypothesis are cumulative. they add up. They are adding up.

You tell me it happened, but haven´t a clue how. Slight glimmerings aren´t the final answer, not by a long, long shot

Your straw men are irrelevant

Prejudice is not evidence. Like most creationists you do not understand the concept, and since you were in law enforcement that is rather disappointing. A perfectly good source was given to you on the subject. If you apply the standards of the given definition to your claims you would see that you have no evidence and yet those on the side of abiogenesis do have evidence.

 

[shmogie]

But that information is chemical in nature. The reading of that information is done chemically. The way those 'instructions' are followed is chemical. It isn't that life is *based* of chemistry, it *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions. Furthermore, the 'information systems' actively participate in that chemistry: they are not separate from it and unaffected by it. The information itself is *generated* by the chemistry.



Except that your 'myriad problems' have not proven to be actually problematic when investigated further. Information isn't some mysterious thing: it is a product of the chemistry.



Truthfully, it doesn't look like you have. Are you familiar with the work of Sidney Fox back in the 70's? if not, you have certainly not done due diligence. Are you familiar with the concept of the RNA world and why it seems like such was a predecessor of the current DNA world? have you looked into the ways that amino acids or nucleic acids can be polymerized in natural environments? Do you understand that a great deal of the 'information' in biological systems is based on simple attraction or repulsion to water? Can you identify the family of chemicals that does the translation between nucleic acids and amino acids? And why that is relevant to the RNA world hypothesis?

Yes, I am familiar with the RNA world concept, and their are serious flaws with it as well. Yes amino acids can be polymerized in natural environment, some of them, and the process is as likely to non polyrmerize as to form chains. Water itself can destroy them, as can oxygen.

You have investigated further, then please, for the third time, share the results of your investigation

Chemical processes in a cell are the result of information. Chemical processes do not produce this information, except by replication from DNA.

In the precursor organism where did the DNA or RNA information come from, that would form all of the commands that regulate the processes of the organism. All would have to come together at the same time, for the organism would not survive if any were absent

Every living cell contains a code (A-T,C-G sequence) that originates and is sent by the DNA to the receiver, RNA that translates the code and activates various proteins to operate all the ´¨ machinery¨ of the cell so it can function and survive.

What natural chemical process do you know of that created a complicated set of instructions for an organism that didn´t exist yet ?

 

[Jose Fly]

Therefore, after a century of research, science still doesn´t know how abiogenesis came about.

That's not unusual. It took scientists centuries to figure out the orbits of the planets too....but eventually they did.

Therefore, those who say it did

And who is that exactly?

can no more prove it than I can ID, or divine creation, or flying blue platypuses who have physics degrees. Therefore their position has no more merit than mine.

So your position is that unless something is absolutely proven, then any and all alternatives are equally viable?