Intelligent Design???

[shmogie]

As I told you earlier, I will posts some of the extreme difficulties with abiogenesis research.

I want to thank you for pushing me into this magical mystery tour, it has given me the opportunity to revisit areas that my memory was losing, and to learn of new research and criticisms of that research. Books that were dusty on the shelf were reopened and reviewed.

I of course could easily find hundreds of pages of serious flaws in the concept, written by well qualified scientists whom you would call creationists. My criteria was to cite atheists, since atheists disqualify creationist scientists.

I could cite one of my good friends, a recently retired professor of microbiology at a well known Ca. university who has over 100 peer reviewed articles and papers in his primary area of research, cancer. He does not support abiogenesis for a whole host of reasons based upon his understanding of cellular biology, but he is a supporter of ID.

Richard Dawkins, that guru of new atheism, says that anyone who does not believe in abiogenesis is a fool, therefore, the idea's of my friend are foolish.

I will give you some more quotations on the matter, then I will cite one article from one of the premier abiogenesis researchers today. In it, he discusses the problems with the primary hypotheses of abiogenesis today, and offers a new one of his own.

Continuing

"Nobody understands the origin of life. If someone tries to tell you they do, they are trying to fool you" Ken Nealson PhD, University of Southern California

" Research on the origins of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion is already authoritatively accepted. What remains is to find the scenario's which describe the detailed processes and mechanisms by which this happened " " A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes that can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written" H.P. Yockey PhD, " A calculation of the probability of spontaneous bigenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67: 377-398 1977 Still true today

 

[Subduction Zone]

Continuing

"Nobody understands the origin of life. If someone tries to tell you they do, they are trying to fool you" Ken Nealson PhD, University of Southern California

" Research on the origins of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion is already authoritatively accepted. What remains is to find the scenario's which describe the detailed processes and mechanisms by which this happened " " A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes that can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written" H.P. Yockey PhD, " A calculation of the probability of spontaneous bigenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67: 377-398 1977 Still true today

That is over 40 years old. Do you seriously think that there has been no progress in forty years? This sort of statement takes one out of the debate. At this point there is only correction.

 

[shunyadragon]

I of course could easily find hundreds of pages of serious flaws in the concept, written by well qualified scientists whom you would call creationists. My criteria was to cite atheists, since atheists disqualify creationist scientists.

I do not disqualify anyone who presents science as science without a religious agenda. There are a very few 'Creationist' scientists, such as those at the Discovery Institute that misuse science and probability to justify their agenda.

I could cite one of my good friends, a recently retired professor of microbiology at a well known Ca. university who has over 100 peer reviewed articles and papers in his primary area of research, cancer. He does not support abiogenesis for a whole host of reasons based upon his understanding of cellular biology, but he is a supporter of ID.

If I am correct as to who this is. He is indeed a Creationist scientist.

Richard Dawkins, that guru of new atheism, says that anyone who does not believe in abiogenesis is a fool, therefore, the idea's of my friend are foolish.

I do not consider the views of Richard Dawkins central to my argument, and you need to cite your sources, including your friends, and specific citations by Richard Dawkins.

I will give you some more quotations on the matter, then I will cite one article from one of the premier abiogenesis researchers today. In it, he discusses the problems with the primary hypotheses of abiogenesis today, and offers a new one of his own.

I do not believe you have given me citation in a scientific context yet.

Still waiting. . .

 

[shunyadragon]

Continuing

"Nobody understands the origin of life. If someone tries to tell you they do, they are trying to fool you" Ken Nealson PhD, University of Southern California

" Research on the origins of life seems to be unique in that the conclusion is already authoritatively accepted. What remains is to find the scenario's which describe the detailed processes and mechanisms by which this happened " " A scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes that can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written" H.P. Yockey PhD, " A calculation of the probability of spontaneous bigenesis by information theory, Journal of Theoretical Biology, 67: 377-398 1977 Still true today

Initially I will object to his use of the word 'chance' in terms of how abiogenesis took place. He does propose problems with abiogenesis, but that is accepted in all the fields of science related to abiogenesis. Also he does not propose anything close to Creationism as the origin evolution of life.

He contributed to cross genetic transfer of genes from bacteria and archea, and vice versa. He remains an advocate of evolution and abiogenesis, but he does propose an origin and initial evolution of life outside the our planet in space and not Creationism.

He does not oppose abiogenesis and evolution, but proposes an alternative to those who propose origins on earth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Interesting response. You have NOT once refuted any of the facts of my posts. Why not I wonder ?

Easy. You did not post any facts to refute.

You dance around the periphery, thinking indirect ad hominems, innuendo, and sarcasm is a defense of abiogenesis.

No. I do not have to defend it. You have done nothing to support your position for me to offer a defense for.

It is not, it is an indictment of what you understand of the subject.

I understand the subject pretty well. You should join me in that understanding.

Otherwise, you would offer direct, cogent, counterclaims.

Counter claims to what? The quotes you offered as evidence only say we do not know how life started and I agree with that.

I find this quite often with the abiogenesis proponents.

They are either ignorant of what they believe,

What do my beliefs have to do with science and the hypotheses of abiogenesis?

or will describe in exhaustive detail a minor chemical process in the grand scheme of their idea of what had to have happened to create the alleged precursor organism.

I find this quite often with the abiogenesis opponents. They are ignorant of what they believe, ignorant of the science and ignorant about debate.

They drone on and on about nothing.

This "evidence" of abiogenesis in the grand scheme of things is very underwhelming. When pinned down, whatever they are describing, at least by the honest ones, is admitted to be an infinitely small step toward life

If your point is that you have nothing to bring to the table, I think everyone is clear on that.

What part of my position "we do not know how life started" is the most difficult for you to understand?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I told you earlier, I will posts some of the extreme difficulties with abiogenesis research.

What would this have to do with whether abiogenesis happened or not. Evidence of difficulties with research is evidence the research is difficult and not that the subject of the research should be rejected.

I want to thank you for pushing me into this magical mystery tour, it has given me the opportunity to revisit areas that my memory was losing, and to learn of new research and criticisms of that research. Books that were dusty on the shelf were reopened and reviewed.[/QUOTE]It is a shame you did not share any of those dusty memories with us. Or were the quotes you posted and the erroneous claim that abiogenesis is not possible according to science, some of that dust?

I of course could easily find hundreds of pages of serious flaws in the concept, written by well qualified scientists whom you would call creationists. My criteria was to cite atheists, since atheists disqualify creationist scientists.

No you cannot. Creation science is pseudoscience. If there was anything valid in that mess, you would have posted it instead of erroneous claims and quotes about how difficult origins science is.

I could cite one of my good friends, a recently retired professor of microbiology at a well known Ca. university who has over 100 peer reviewed articles and papers in his primary area of research, cancer. He does not support abiogenesis for a whole host of reasons based upon his understanding of cellular biology, but he is a supporter of ID.

If you could, you would. Since you did not, obviously you cannot. Dancing around in a circle is getting you no where.

Richard Dawkins, that guru of new atheism, says that anyone who does not believe in abiogenesis is a fool, therefore, the idea's of my friend are foolish.

We will never know, since you are afraid to post those ideas.

I will give you some more quotations on the matter, then I will cite one article from one of the premier abiogenesis researchers today. In it, he discusses the problems with the primary hypotheses of abiogenesis today, and offers a new one of his own.

And this means what? Given that you may actually post this stuff or perhaps you will just talk about posting it some more without posting anything.

Wow! Science ironing out the details of frontier scientific research. Is this your late breaking news?

 

[shunyadragon]

An error in the previous post as to the source of this research

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

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

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.

 

[exchemist]

Just for a minor diversion, here is another example of something that looks "designed", to the uninitiated: Spooky snow phenomenon spotted in field

 

[shunyadragon]

Just for a minor diversion, here is another example of something that looks "designed", to the uninitiated: Spooky snow phenomenon spotted in field

I have actually seen this on my farm when I lived near Parkersburg, WV. There is a scientific explanation for this.

 

[exchemist]

I have actually seen this on my farm when I lived near Parkersburg, WV. There is a scientific explanation for this.

Yes, the explanation is more or less given in the article.

I have little doubt that at one time these would have been attributed to fairies, or some other supernatural entity, the relevance to this thread being that one should not jump to conclusions based on appearance.

 

[shmogie]

What would this have to do with whether abiogenesis happened or not. Evidence of difficulties with research is evidence the research is difficult and not that the subject of the research should be rejected.

I want to thank you for pushing me into this magical mystery tour, it has given me the opportunity to revisit areas that my memory was losing, and to learn of new research and criticisms of that research. Books that were dusty on the shelf were reopened and reviewed.

It is a shame you did not share any of those dusty memories with us. Or were the quotes you posted and the erroneous claim that abiogenesis is not possible according to science, some of that dust?

No you cannot. Creation science is pseudoscience. If there was anything valid in that mess, you would have posted it instead of erroneous claims and quotes about how difficult origins science is.

If you could, you would. Since you did not, obviously you cannot. Dancing around in a circle is getting you no where.

We will never know, since you are afraid to post those ideas.

And this means what? Given that you may actually post this stuff or perhaps you will just talk about posting it some more without posting anything.

Wow! Science ironing out the details of frontier scientific research. Is this your late breaking news?[/QUOTE]
As always, you said nothing, something for which you have developed a refined penchant.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As always, you said nothing, something for which you have developed a refined penchant.

I am more interested in evidence that you allude to, but do not post. Outside of quotes from scientists that say that researching abiogenesis is going to be difficult and that we do not know how life started, do you have anything meaningful to bring to the table?

 

[shmogie]

Easy. You did not post any facts to refute.

No. I do not have to defend it. You have done nothing to support your position for me to offer a defense for.

I understand the subject pretty well. You should join me in that understanding.

Counter claims to what? The quotes you offered as evidence only say we do not know how life started and I agree with that.

What do my beliefs have to do with science and the hypotheses of abiogenesis?

I find this quite often with the abiogenesis opponents. They are ignorant of what they believe, ignorant of the science and ignorant about debate.

They drone on and on about nothing.

If your point is that you have nothing to bring to the table, I think everyone is clear on that.

What part of my position "we do not know how life started" is the most difficult for you to understand?

Not difficult for me to understand, at all. However, you don't really believe it. You believe it did happen, so the mechanism is just frosting on the forgone conclusion.

The excuse is always, "ongoing research, ongoing research ", the same excuse the UFOlogists use when telling us grey three fingered aliens live in area 51.

Will there ever be a point where science says, "it couldn';t happen ?" Of course not ! The faith must always be kept, even though the evidence, which science says guides it, is pitiful.

You are a prime example of the defender of the faith, a tempest in a teapot, always focused on the messenger and not the message. You don't even know what biogenesis information is, yet propose to discuss it.

 

[shmogie]

I am more interested in evidence that you allude to, but do not post. Outside of quotes from scientists that say that researching abiogenesis is going to be difficult and that we do not know how life started, do you have anything meaningful to bring to the table?

Yep, my last response to you. I will continue the conversation the correspondent with whom it began

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Not difficult for me to understand, at all. However, you don't really believe it. You believe it did happen, so the mechanism is just frosting on the forgone conclusion.

The excuse is always, "ongoing research, ongoing research ", the same excuse the UFOlogists use when telling us grey three fingered aliens live in area 51.

Will there ever be a point where science says, "it couldn';t happen ?" Of course not ! The faith must always be kept, even though the evidence, which science says guides it, is pitiful.

You are a prime example of the defender of the faith, a tempest in a teapot, always focused on the messenger and not the message. You don't even know what biogenesis information is, yet propose to discuss it.

Considering that your posts are directed at me and not to the evidence that you claim to have, I find it difficult to understand how it is me and not you that is attacking the messenger.

Present the evidence that you claim to have and let us all look at.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yep, my last response to you. I will continue the conversation the correspondent with whom it began

Will you be including any evidence in that continuation? That is the key here and not all your rhetoric and focus on the messengers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not difficult for me to understand, at all. However, you don't really believe it. You believe it did happen, so the mechanism is just frosting on the forgone conclusion.

The excuse is always, "ongoing research, ongoing research ", the same excuse the UFOlogists use when telling us grey three fingered aliens live in area 51.

Will there ever be a point where science says, "it couldn';t happen ?" Of course not ! The faith must always be kept, even though the evidence, which science says guides it, is pitiful.

You are a prime example of the defender of the faith, a tempest in a teapot, always focused on the messenger and not the message. You don't even know what biogenesis information is, yet propose to discuss it.

It appears that you have no idea of how much progress has been made in the science. Faith is your flaw. If there were not continual advances in the science it would not be so well accepted.

I do find it rather amusing how those with faith based beliefs are constantly accusing others of their sin.

 

[ratiocinator]

The excuse is always, "ongoing research, ongoing research ", the same excuse the UFOlogists use when telling us grey three fingered aliens live in area 51.

Will there ever be a point where science says, "it couldn';t happen ?" Of course not ! The faith must always be kept, even though the evidence, which science says guides it, is pitiful.

There is absolutely no comparison. There is no evidence at allf for aliens in area 51. On the other hand, we have plentiful evidence that abiogenesis happened - life did actually appear on the early earth, somehow or other. We know approximately when and under what sort of conditions.

We then have a choice, we can either continue to do scientific research or we can give up and say "this is 'ard, I dunno, it must be magic".

We can't totally, logically rule out the intervention of some god or gods, or the involvement of invisible pixies called Eric, for that matter - but it's rather a dead end approach and, let's face it, the god of the gaps doesn't have a great track record...

 

[shmogie]

Initially I will object to his use of the word 'chance' in terms of how abiogenesis took place. He does propose problems with abiogenesis, but that is accepted in all the fields of science related to abiogenesis. Also he does not propose anything close to Creationism as the origin evolution of life.

He contributed to cross genetic transfer of genes from bacteria and archea, and vice versa. He remains an advocate of evolution and abiogenesis, but he does propose an origin and initial evolution of life outside the our planet in space and not Creationism.

He does not oppose abiogenesis and evolution, but proposes an alternative to those who propose origins on earth.

No, he doesn't. As I pointed out, I am only using scientists that are atheists, and have no connection with ID.

There are many very qualified scientists, including my friend, who do not meet that criteria.

You object to the word "chance", please elucidate.

From the athesit/science viewpoint, chance has been at work in the universe from the very beginning, it would seem to me.

Within Planck time of the BB matter and antimatter began cancelling one another out, there was slightly more matter, else there would be no universe. Every cosmologist I have read says this was a chance occurrence..

 

[shmogie]

There is absolutely no comparison. There is no evidence at allf for aliens in area 51. On the other hand, we have plentiful evidence that abiogenesis happened - life did actually appear on the early earth, somehow or other. We know approximately when and under what sort of conditions.

We then have a choice, we can either continue to do scientific research or we can give up and say "this is 'ard, I dunno, it must be magic".

We can't totally, logically rule out the intervention of some god or gods, or the involvement of invisible pixies called Eric, for that matter - but it's rather a dead end approach and, let's face it, the god of the gaps doesn't have a great track record...

But, of course, the ufologists say there is evidence for Alf at area 51. They have signed witness statements from folk who worked there who saw the alien.

If you look at Roswell, they have all kinds of witness testimony for little green men lying around on the ground.

Why don't you believe that evidence ?

No, actually there is very little evidence that abiogenesis happened.

This is one of the few cases where science has taken the position that something is a fact, then set out to find evidence for it, instead of the other way around.

Because life exists is not prime facie evidence that abiogenesis existed.

Scientific research should continue, absolutely.

However, scientific research is not evidence of anything but research.