Unscientific?

[Zhakir]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific? Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?
I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

 

[Breathe]

Zhakir, slightly off-topic from the questions you have asked, but have you read TalkOrigins?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific? Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?
I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

You start out by wanting to know what is 'unscientific' about IT. But your questions have nothing to do with that.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific?

Perhaps no one has thought of a testable hypothesis. Provide a testable hypothesis and I wager science will be all over it.

Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species.

Agreed! Yet it clearly shows there is no need for a desinger. Why intorduce an unnecessary element which has no observational import.

Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?

Not the main reason, but yes. Cry wolf (god) a thousand times and no god shows himself, people (rational) stop looking.

I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

This is not a correct view. I don't doubt many have said it. Evolution is hardly the only scientifc theory available. It is the best, single most compeling by far explaination. Thousands of scientists have studied the evidence and none have provided a more convincing theory to explaint the observable facts. Yet all the alternatives are vetted.

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

Excellent questions. How do you propose to find out? There are cases where very specific changes in sequences are know. This is demonstrated by comparative analysis. You look at the genes across a population, say for eye color, and you code the different colors of eyes. You end up with the sequences of each allele which show the exact differences. But asking why we don't know certain specifics and then (presumably) ready to say this calls into question the specifics we do know, is kind of like saying if you can't prove how an impulse engine would work than you must not know how an internal combustion engine works.

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

Excellent questions. The fact that you can ask about demonstrating it experimentally and have some idea of what would be needed demonstrates that these are scientific questions, unlike IT. Even if it were possible to duplicate the hypothesized conditions of an early earth, that does not mean we think we know all of the millions of tiny details that may have led up to that moment. Looking for millions of details might take a while.

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

Why would we need to. I haven't hear the IT crowd's response to reducibliity. A minite is nothing more than a series of 60 seconds. An hour, 60 minites, a day 24 hours, a year, 365 days. Did you have to designe your entire year down to the last second before you lived it? It is an obvious fact that tiny details can add up to great complications. It is evident that a designer is not needed. Why would I need to go beyond that without a response from IT.

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

Actually, for me it was much harder to believe this. It took me the better part of half a century to completly do away with MY NEED FOR A CREATOR. It's actually both much harder, and much freer, to live knowing there is no need, other than pshycological, for a creator. But I think the answer you are looking for, and what got me to the place I am, is reason and observation.

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

No. As an evolutionary scientist I have years worth of observations, both personal and shared with me. There is no observation you can present regarding human behavior and psychology for which a plausible evolutionary explaination can not be hypothosysed. I think that really it. Ask a million questions about observed facts and evolution promisses an answer that is consistent with the model, allowing for tweaks which strengthen the model. Theology is an exercise in bending the model to suit the question. Theology is an exercise is suspending belife and reason in order to continue holding on to the conclusion.

 

[Caladan]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific? Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?

In general because an intelligent designer is not needed neither empirically relevant to scientific theories. In what way do you believe an intelligent designer fits into the research of evolution? or Genetics? or biology in general?

 

[Alceste]

Creationism is unscientific because it lacks every single defining characteristic that science requires. For anything to be scientific, it must have the following:

1. A testable hypothesis based on observable phenomena.

2. An empirical method of establishing the truth or falsehood of the hypothesis.

3. Well-reasoned conclusions based on the collected data.

Let me ask you a question: why do you want or need to call your religion "scientific"? Doing so makes a confusing mess of both faith and science. The whole point of faith is that you believe in something without evidence. IOW, faith by definition cannot be scientific. But that's ok, isn't it?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific?

What is the main reason for considering soundwaves to be inedible?

 

[Ouroboros]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific? Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?
I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

Intelligent Design is considered unscientific because it fails to provide any research or methods of falsification. It mostly is based on "Evolution can't explain x, y, z, therefore a Divine Source and Creator..." Science doesn't work that way.

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

We can't demonstrate all the steps in the chain... yet. But I do think some of them have been demonstrated, but I'm not completely certain.

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

That's part of the research being done. It's not all clear yet.

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

Well, yes. Lenski's long running experiment with E-Coli produced irreducible complex genes. Around generation 50,000 (if I remember right) the bacteria had a gene that required several steps of mutations. They went back and found the first (neutral mutation I think) at around 20,000. So basically, it has been observed and documented to happen. If it can't happen, then how the heck did it happen in this experiment?

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

I believe it is all one thing. The consciousness is a primary part of existence, reality, and nature. There's no "outside of us" or "outside of universe" or "other than us". We are part of God as much as Nature is part of God. No personal or separate God had to be the one thinking, planning, creating, designing, etc the world. The world is self-creating. And consciousness and experience is part of the mystery of existence itself.

On the other hand, why couldn't God (your God) have used Evolution to Create? Why did he have to use some other magical, mystical, unknown method? Exactly HOW did your God create the world? By LEGO pieces, building one atom at a time? Crafting humans from clay, using his hands? Are we claymation people? Don't think so. God could have used Evolution, and a smart God would have used it.

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

Evolution doesn't explain everything. Correct. There's psychology, anthropology, sociology, ... and much more. Don't think that Evolution is the One Solution to everything. It's not the Unified Field Theory of Existence. There's more to it than just Evolution, but... God could have used Evolution to do his deed. Why can't you believe that? Why fight against the obvious?

 

[Parsimony]

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

What's wrong with modelling things in computers? Computer simulations can indeed demonstrate the soundness of a principle. This is especially true if we want to look at processes that would take too long to see in a human life time. Modelling galactic collisions comes to mind. The three enzymes used by Flavobacterium to break down nylon polymers would represent a form of irreducible complexity (remove a single enzyme type and the long-chain polymers cannot be digested), yet we know that it must have evolved because those nylon polymers do not exist in nature. Each one of those enzymes has been traced back to its own individual gene as well. The bacteria must have evolved in response to man-made chemicals.

 

[Sunstone]

Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

You seem to be assuming that an intelligent life form is present on this planet. As it happens, that notion would appear to be groundless, based on all available evidence.

 

[shawn001]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific? Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?
I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

This will answer ALL of your questions.

Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[Monk Of Reason]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific? Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?
I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

Point mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not know about the exact formation of the ATP synthase enzyme gene though I am not a biologist. You could do a little bit of research on it though and tell us what you find. The above link is specifically on how mutations occur.

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

Actually to assume there is a first "cell" would probably be inaccurate. Just as there is no specific line between "human" and "not human" during our evolution there is more than likely no hard line between "cell" and "almost a cell" during the early beginnings of life. Though the abiogensis does actually work with the theory of evolution there is nothing about the theory of evolution that hinges upon it. Its the other way around.

Though there has been some very recent breakthrough in the theories about how DNA and RNA began.

Evolution 101: From Soup to Cells - the Origin of Life

What Came Before DNA? | DiscoverMagazine.com

Origin and Evolution of DNA and DNA Replication Machineries - Madame Curie Bioscience Database - NCBI Bookshelf

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

Can you provide an example of irreducible complexity?

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

Evidence. We have evidence of these processes. There is no evidence for "creationism". Can you think of a single shred of evidence that is in support of creationism? BTW evidence against evolution is not directly evidence FOR creationism. It isn't some default position if evolution was wrong (its not btw but for the sake of argument). So again can you tell me any pieces of evidence in favor of ID?

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

Actually I personally have delved into this subject many many times. What would you like to know?

Empathy is something that evolved far before "humans" and is seen in other animals. This is the basis for much of human's behavior and psychology. I haven't seen legion around for a while but he would be able to tell you far better than I.

But essentially the point is this. There is individual based evolution which is where the "fitness" of a creature is measured purely by itself. Then there is evolution where "groups" determine the fitness.

A simple way to see this is if I had 10 specimens that were more "physically fit" than another 10 specimens but the 10 specimens that were "weaker" worked together and looked out for each other they could band together and take on any one of the first group. 10 normal people working together will get more done than one talented person ever could.

And then the gene pool reflects this as we are a socially based species.

 

[shawn001]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific? Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?
I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

"What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific?"


"NARRATOR: Starting with Ken Miller, the plaintiffs walked Judge Jones through the conflict at the heart of this case.

Miller testified how Darwin's theory pictures the history of life as a tree, with species gradually evolving into others over millions of years, producing new branches and twigs, a process that gives rise to all the variety of life, from bacteria to Darwin's finches to ourselves.

But intelligent design takes a different view, as the movement's own literature shows. Intelligent design teaches a history of life in which organisms appear abruptly, are unrelated, and linked only by their designer.

NICK MATZKE: What's really being advocated is the idea that organisms poofed into existence through the miraculous act of an intelligent designer, i.e., God. That's the view that intelligent design promotes.



""EUGENIE C. SCOTT: The fundamental problem with intelligent design is that you can't use it to explain the natural world. It's essentially a negative argument. It says, "Evolution doesn't work, therefore the designer did it. Evolution doesn't work, therefore we win by default."

But when you ask them, "What does intelligent design tell you about nature? Does it tell you what the designer did? Does it tell you what the designer used to design something with? Does it tell you what purpose the designer had for designing something? Does it tell you when the designer did it? Why the designer did it?" It doesn't tell you anything like that. Basically, it's a negative argument. And you can't build a science on a negative argument.""


"NEIL SHUBIN: Darwin didn't even know about molecular biology and DNA, yet that's where some of the most profound evidence is being uncovered today. Think about that. That somebody in the 1800s made predictions that are being confirmed in molecular biology labs today. That's a very profound statement of a very successful theory.


"KENNETH R. MILLER: Not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution. Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of contentious testing is a pretty darn good theory, and that's what evolution is.""

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial


Zhakir, should pseudoscience be taught in schools?

 

[dust1n]

My Questions On Evolution:

1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

I came across this relatively quickly, but such level of cellular biology is beyond me:

Evolution of ATP synthase

The evolution of ATP synthase is thought to be an example of modular evolution during which two functionally independent subunits became associated and gained new functionality.[5][6] This association appears to have occurred early in evolutionary history, because essentially the same structure and activity of ATP synthase enzymes are present in all kingdoms of life.[5] The F-ATP synthase displays high functional and mechanistic similarity to the V-ATPase.[7] However, whereas the F-ATP synthase generates ATP by utilising a proton gradient, the V-ATPase generates a proton gradient at the expense of ATP, generating pH values of as low as 1.
The F1 domain also shows significant similarity to hexameric DNA helicases, and the FO domain shows some similarity to H

+
​

-powered flagellar motor complexes.[7] The α3β3 hexamer of the F1 domain shows significant structural similarity to hexameric DNA helicases; both form a ring with 3-fold rotational symmetry with a central pore. Both have roles dependent on the relative rotation of a macromolecule within the pore; the DNA helicases use the helical shape of DNA to drive their motion along the DNA molecule and to detect supercoiling, whereas the α3β3 hexamer uses the conformational changes through the rotation of the γ subunit to drive an enzymatic reaction.[8]
The H+
motor of the FO particle shows great functional similarity to the H+
motors seen in flagellar motors.[7] Both feature a ring of many small alpha-helical proteins that rotate relative to nearby stationary proteins, using a H+
potential gradient as an energy source. This link is tenuous, however, as the overall structure of flagellar motors is far more complex than that of the FO particle and the ring with ca. 30 rotating proteins is far larger than the 10, 11, or 14 helical proteins in the FO complex.
The modular evolution theory for the origin of ATP synthase suggests that two subunits with independent function, a DNA helicase with ATPase activity and a H+
motor, were able to bind, and the rotation of the motor drove the ATPase activity of the helicase in reverse.[5][8] This complex then evolved greater efficiency and eventually developed into today's intricate ATP synthases. Alternatively, the DNA helicase/H+
motor complex may have had H+
pump activity with the ATPase activity of the helicase driving the H+
motor in reverse.[5] This may have evolved to carry out the reverse reaction and act as an ATP synthase.[6]
ATP synthase in different organisms

Human ATP synthase

The following is a list of humans genes that encode components of ATP synthases:

• ATP5A1, ATP5AL1
• ATP5B, ATP5BL1
• ATP5C2, ATP5D, ATP5E, ATP5F1, ATP5G1, ATP5G2, ATP5G3, ATP5H, ATP5HP1, ATP5I, ATP5J, ATP5J2, ATP5L, ATP5L2, ATP5O, ATP5S
• ATP6, ATP6AP1, ATP6AP2
• ATPSBL1, ATPSBL2
• MT-ATP6, MT-ATP8

In plants, ATP synthase is also present in chloroplasts (CF1FO-ATP synthase). The enzyme is integrated into thylakoid membrane; the CF1-part sticks into stroma, where dark reactions of photosynthesis (Also called the light-independent reactions or the Calvin cycle) and ATP synthesis take place. The overall structure and the catalytic mechanism of the chloroplast ATP synthase are almost the same as those of the mitochondrial enzyme. However, in chloroplasts, the proton motive force is generated not by respiratory electron transport chain but by primary photosynthetic proteins.

The ATP synthase isolated from bovine heart mitochondria (Bos taurus) is, in terms of biochemistry and structure, the best-characterized ATP synthase. Beef heart is used as a source for the enyzme because of the high concentration of mitochondria in cardiac muscle.

E. coli ATP synthase is the simplest known form of ATP synthase, with 8 different subunit types.

Yeast ATP synthase is one of the best-studied eukaryotic ATP synthases; and five F1, eight FO subunits, and seven associated proteins have been identified.[9] Most of these proteins have homologues in other eukaryotes.[10]


ATP synthase - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

Great questions! There are competing theories regarding the formation of RNA, DNA protiens and cell membranes. No one knows for sure yet, thus the much research people put into researching any method which seems reasonable for protocells to develop from non-bionic components. The RNA world theory has various evidences, but nothing as to prove definitely its assertions.

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

Without computer simulations to perform the required maths necessary to even look at a DNA, one can sit and speculate infinitely on whether or not the complexity around us is irreducible.

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

Hmm, well, it's easier to match senselessness and entropy to a non-intelligent actor, in my opinion. But this is not why I believe in various theories found in evolution, nor disbelieve the existence of the supernatural.

 

[dust1n]

(cont.)

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

I support any thorough research in the fields of psychology or biology that might lead us to better understandings to things about the human psyche that are not yet known. I doubt sacrifice and working of unrelated people, and feelings for others, are a strictly human occurrence, though not of the same nature of our own.

 

[shawn001]

Here is some information on consciousness.


The Electric Brain

"How does a three-pound mass of wet gray tissue (the brain) succeed in representing the external world so beautifully? In this interview with noted neuroscientist Rodolfo Llinás of the New York University School of Medicine, find out how the rhythm of electrical oscillations in the brain gives rise to consciousness, and how failures in this rhythm can lead to a variety of brain disorders."

NOVA | The Electric Brain

 

[McBell]

What is main reason for considering the concept of "intelligent designer" unscientific?

It does not follow the scientific method.

Whether or not random mutations can give rise to new functioning genes is not enough to disprove a designer of genes with a little or no need for natural selection to create new species. Is it possibly because religious interpretation is illogically always considered by many as "unscientific"?

Based upon this above quote it would appear you do not understand the scientific method.

I also noticed that one of the main arguments of Evolutionists is that "We should accept evolution because it is the only scientific theory available, others are religious based." (GSA said so if I'm not mistaken )

Do you know of a another scientific theory that explains the diversity of life on the planet?

My Questions On Evolution:
1. Only recently we knew the whole of human genome. Evolutionists talk a lot about the main proposed mechanisms of mutations leading to the formation of new genes, what information do they have regarding the exact sequence of changes in neucleotides sequences made by these mutations? e.g What mutation sequences happened to what gene that led to formation of ATP synthase enzyme gene of Respiratory chain? How can this be demonstrated?

2. Regarding the first cell, How exactly did the RNA world form and did metabolism? Why can't that be demonstrated experimentally if the proposed conditions of "early earth" are known? What where the sources of energy? How natural selection began in such RNA world? How did proteins suddenly form and became part of the organism before even a cell membrane forms?

3. Can evolutionists respond to the concept of Irreducible complexity without saying that "Computed experiments demonstrate that it is possible for complexities to be reducible"? Any respond in other words available e.g The development of the immune system?

4. Why do you think it is easier to believe that unconsciousness created intelligent beings than to believe in an intelligent designer of intelligent?

5. Don't you think that Only very few explanations are available for the evolution of human behavior and psychology?. It's actually about much wider concepts than just survival and fitness. Few examples are Sacrifice, working for unrelated people, feeling for others etc.

I have serious doubts in your ability to understand any accurate answers to the above questions.

I mean, if you do not even know what the scientific method is....

 

[idav]

It is unscientific until someone is clever enough to find a test for it. Not that people arent clever enough, science figures out all kinds of tricky ways to find answers. ID cant be tested very easily. Everything appears the same whether looking at is as guided or not.

 

[gnostic]

Evidences, Zhakir.

Science required evidences.

There are more to science than just hypotheses and theories. Hypothesis and theory have to be tested or evidences have to be found, to either validate the theory/hypothesis or refute them. Evidences are one of the foundations to science.

In order for science to accept Intelligent Design (ID), you will have provide EVIDENCES to prove that the Designer exist.

Then you will have to provide MORE EVIDENCES, to show that the Designer is responsible these creation or the so-called "Intelligent Design".

To date, ID advocates have provided evidences to neither claims. Nor do ID follow the Scientific Method.

ID is merely unsubstantiated speculations; ID is not even hypothesis, let alone scientific theory, because Intelligent Design is not falsifiable.

Science has to be "falsifiable", in order to at least make the 1st step of being "scientific".

Do you understand what "falsifiable" in science mean?

Falsifiable mean that any logic, claim or hypothesis can "show to be false", and that any of statement (claim or hypothesis) is testable. Falsifiability mean "testability", that it can be "refuted". And testability mean that statement can be "tested", meaning "evidences".

God is not falsifiable (or "unfalsifiable"), therefore "unscientific". Creationism is unfalsifiable, as is ID, miracles, ghosts, goblins, fairy godmother, unicorns.

I would suggest that you look up and read on FALSIFICATION.

ps do not confuse "evidence" with "proof". Science uses "evidences", while "proof" is in the domain of mathematics. Although I think that evidences can go hand-in-hand with mathematical proofs...sometimes.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Zhakir, I'll ask you a question: if we're create by some deity, shouldn't we expect to see some evidence of this? For example, shouldn't there be some trace in our DNA, or our chemical makeup, that points to a creator? But the mapping of the human genome was the last great step in completely understanding humans, at least from a biological perspective. And yet, there's nothing there, that I can see, that would point to some sort of supernatural creator. How do you account for this?