Proof against abiogenesis/evolution -- affirmative proof of God

[True_Blue]

FYI Thaumaturgy:

The de-oxy state of the ribose backbone in DNA means that the ring can form a stable pucker that allows the bases to overlap and gain further stability through electron sharing, similar to the way benzene is stabilized through its 2-1-2 etc bonding.

This is why DNA forms a stable double helix. and why RNA does not.

Anyone else getting a mental image of a "chemistry" entity twirling its moustache?

Blayz, I note from your profile that you have degrees in computer science and biology. Have you ever applied your talents to building a computer model for abiogenesis probabilities in an assumed prehistoric environment? Are you interested in such a thing?

 

[RealityCheck]

By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, chemistry is not random but malevolent with respect to life.

You have been demonstrating your lack of science education throughout the thread, but this takes the cake and all the frosting. Life does not exist at all without chemistry. End of story, go read a first semester chemistry book before you come back.

With respect to complex systems of all kinds, chemistry is an independent force of destruction.

See above.

My model assumes randomness and assumes away the Second Law, setting the parameters of said chance very, very favorably for abiogenesis.

Chemistry is not random. Physics is not random.

"Assumes away the Second Law" - just what is that supposed to mean? Assume it doesn't exist??

No one should take my word

all that needed to be said, frankly...

Creation bears witness in the same way I am bearing witness. On this forum, I'm doing the equivalent of waving a placard in a busy intersection.

And we all know just how effective that is.

When little bacteria wiggle around on a petri dish, they are bearing witness to God. When a person models a DNA strand, the DNA is bearing witness to God. You have the choice of believing or not believing the witnesses you encounter, in whatever form those witnesses take.

Anyone can just as easily say that the bacteria is bearing witness to Siva, the DNA is bearing witness to Asherah, etc. Making such assertions goes no distance at all in making them true.

 

[RealityCheck]

Blayz, I note from your profile that you have degrees in computer science and biology. Have you ever applied your talents to building a computer model for abiogenesis probabilities in an assumed prehistoric environment? Are you interested in such a thing?

TB -

Here's how the probabilities work, as an analogy.

What are the odds that you will win the lottery tomorrow? You know the odds are extremely low.

What are the odds that someone in your state will win the lottery tomorrow (or at the next drawing)? You know that when you expand it to "anyone in the state" the odds are pretty high it will happen.

What are the odds that someone anywhere in this country will win their lottery within the next month? Now we're getting to a probability near 100%.

The probabilities for abiogenesis work the same way.



You also think of the sequencing of chemical chains wrong, even from a purely probabilistic model.

Your model works like this:

Take six dice and throw them in sequence, with the object getting a sequence of 1-2-3-4-5-6 on the dice. If at any time you fail to get the complete sequence, pick up all six dice and start over.

vs. a more realistic model:

Take six dice and throw them in sequence, with the same object of getting a sequence of 1-2-3-4-5-6. If at any time you throw a number that's out of sequence, you leave behind the dice that ARE in sequence already, and simply continue trying complete the sequence.

The number of rolls you need for model 2 is VASTLY lower than the number of rolls you'll need for model 1. And model 2 works - think of the dice as being amino acids forming a primitive protein, or simple non-organic molecules forming chains that become organic molecules.

 

[True_Blue]

Your model works like this:

Take six dice and throw them in sequence, with the object getting a sequence of 1-2-3-4-5-6 on the dice. If at any time you fail to get the complete sequence, pick up all six dice and start over.

vs. a more realistic model:

Take six dice and throw them in sequence, with the same object of getting a sequence of 1-2-3-4-5-6. If at any time you throw a number that's out of sequence, you leave behind the dice that ARE in sequence already, and simply continue trying complete the sequence.

The number of rolls you need for model 2 is VASTLY lower than the number of rolls you'll need for model 1. And model 2 works - think of the dice as being amino acids forming a primitive protein, or simple non-organic molecules forming chains that become organic molecules.

Your point is unquestionably a good one, and I applaud you for this particular post. A really well-done probability model is going to be somewhere in between my model and yours, if you're basing the model on biochemistry. Model a DNA strand as being a collection of fridge magnets [molecules]. You want all the magnets to line up in a row to form a line of DNA. The problem is that the magnets, when they approach each other, will clump together in a cluster. Once they've clumped, takes a great deal of energy to unclump them again, meaning that you have to start over. This is the primary reason I chose the model that I did. Second, the same energy source that created the magnets/amino acids in the first place (i.e. Stanley Miller's lightning strike) may also destroy any structure as it formed, or any of hundreds of other environmental anomalies may destroy it. I essentially assumed a perfect prehistoric environment in the model, as have evolutionists. A lot of Creationists have objected to Stanley's isolation of the newly formed amino acids from the spark, but I don't have a problem with accepting that assumption.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

As an FYI, I don't think chemistry really is random. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, chemistry is not random but malevolent with respect to life. With respect to complex systems of all kinds, chemistry is an independent force of destruction. My model assumes randomness and assumes away the Second Law, setting the parameters of said chance very, very favorably for abiogenesis.

No one should take my word over God's. Are you referring to something in specific? Creation bears witness in the same way I am bearing witness. On this forum, I'm doing the equivalent of waving a placard in a busy intersection. When little bacteria wiggle around on a petri dish, they are bearing witness to God. When a person models a DNA strand, the DNA is bearing witness to God. You have the choice of believing or not believing the witnesses you encounter, in whatever form those witnesses take.

Every day in my job I used chemistry to make complex systems, your computer has in it pieces made by chemistry, taking simple base components and building them up, layer after layer, to form a complex processor. And the plastic parts are the same, simple base components treated chemically to form more complex compounds.

God's own creation speaks against you through the very item you are using to post your false witness.

You are right, I have to chose who I will believe, and that will be God's creation, not someone that is so obviously bearing false witness.

 

[True_Blue]

Every day in my job I used chemistry to make complex systems, your computer has in it pieces made by chemistry, taking simple base components and building them up, layer after layer, to form a complex processor. And the plastic parts are the same, simple base components treated chemically to form more complex compounds.

God's own creation speaks against you through the very item you are using to post your false witness.

You are right, I have to chose who I will believe, and that will be God's creation, not someone that is so obviously bearing false witness.

Both this computer and the complex chemistry performed in your lab are the product of intelligent design.

 

[pgp_protector]

All I can say is
anything more would get me a warning.

 

[Blayz]

Blayz, I note from your profile that you have degrees in computer science and biology. Have you ever applied your talents to building a computer model for abiogenesis probabilities in an assumed prehistoric environment? Are you interested in such a thing?

I have never done it, since my work involves commercially relevant biology, and abiogenesis modelling is too blue sky for private enterprise. Having said that, if some decent enough assumption were available I could model them.

Model a DNA strand as being a collection of fridge magnets

And that's then end of that model. The ribo-bases that make up a NA polymer do not behave like fridge magnets. They polymerize according to a set pattern whereby the 5' C' atom of one ribose ring forms a phopho-ester bond with the 3' C' atom of another.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Both this computer and the complex chemistry performed in your lab are the product of intelligent design.

And even giving you that point, they still show that you are bearing false witness against God's creation. Chemistry and thermodynamics are not the enemies of complexity that you say they are.

Again, I will take the witness of God's creation over one that is so obviously bearing false witness against it.

 

[True_Blue]

I have never done it, since my work involves commercially relevant biology, and abiogenesis modelling is too blue sky for private enterprise. Having said that, if some decent enough assumption were available I could model them.

And that's then end of that model. The ribo-bases that make up a NA polymer do not behave like fridge magnets. They polymerize according to a set pattern whereby the 5' C' atom of one ribose ring forms a phopho-ester bond with the 3' C' atom of another.

Blayz, definitely understand the "commercially relevant" comment. There's where true scientists live and where true science is performed [in my view].

So is that polymerization, extrapolated large scale in the absence of a laboratory or an Engineer, more like a crystal or more like a DNA/RNA strand?

 

[Baggins]

Blayz, definitely understand the "commercially relevant" comment. There's where true scientists live and where true science is performed [in my view].

?

So true science is only that which is commercially relevant. That would have been news to people like ooooh let's see; Darwin, Rutherford, Watson, Crick, Currie, I could go on and on but would it really make any difference, could it possibly make you see how stupid that remark is? I somehow doubt it, what is really sad is that you probably truly believe it and you can see no worth in pure scientific endevour.

 

[True_Blue]

So true science is only that which is commercially relevant. That would have been news to people like ooooh let's see; Darwin, Rutherford, Watson, Crick, Currie, I could go on and on but would it really make any difference, could it possibly make you see how stupid that remark is? I somehoe doubt it, what is really sad is that you probably truly believe it and you can see no worth in pure scientific endevour.

Fine, I withdraw my remark.

 

[Baggins]

Fine, I withdraw my remark.

Thank you. Pure science is the lifeblood of commercial science

 

[Blayz]

So is that polymerization, extrapolated large scale in the absence of a laboratory or an Engineer, more like a crystal or more like a DNA/RNA strand?

It is a NA strand, and nothing like a crystal.

 

[Blayz]

Thank you. Pure science is the lifeblood of commercial science

Seconded.

 

[thaumaturgy]

By the way, strictly speaking, the study of origins is not science per se because of the lack of observational data.

Blayz, definitely understand the "commercially relevant" comment. There's where true scientists live and where true science is performed [in my view]. more like a crystal or more like a DNA/RNA strand?

True_Blue, why do you insist on saying things like the above quotes? Really? What do you know about what "science really is"?

What if I told you what "Law" really was? What if I did it after I showed time and again I haven't the slightest idea how any judicial system really works, I just told you what I felt it should work like?

You have proven time and again you think science is a tool to assist you in making more money. That is fine. It is something that many busines people think. I work in an industry that, like most industries, sees R&D as a "necessary evil" that eats into their precious bottom line. So I'm used to business people's scientifically illiterate attitudes.

But what I find amazing is that you make a variety of sweeping claims about chemistry on this thread, and when you are shown you may be in error in your overgeneralization, you simply ignore or move on. What about Temperate's Challenge?

I can't help but notice your "expertise" seems to fall apart when you merely have to use your version of a chemical model to calculate the odds of a reaction and its yield. It is doubly interesting because I suspect you know that Temperate Sea Islander could then show you how right or wrong you were, and as most Creationists, I sense you are afraid of that.

I can understand that. You don't know how science is really done but you do know what it's like to present a point and then be shown your error in your field. But so many Creationists never put those two things together and they never think they will called on the carpet for a claim in a field outside of their own.

Creationists have a "missing cylinder" of sorts. They know what it's like to be error as all people have experienced that, but they seem incapable of realizing that they could be in error in the sciences despite their not having any real science background! It is as if they think they have God's Shield to protect them.

Well, let's see the power of God's Shield. Use your model to show us how effectively it is capable of handling a comparatively simple system:

You keep on saying this and people keep on telling you that you are wrong. So lets see how good your probability model is.

Can you use your model to predict the ratios of A, B and C formed in the above reaction.

Use your model to show us what the results are, then we'll have Temperate pull up the actual ratios and we can determine if your model has even simple merit.

Fair enough?

 

[Aerika]

He isn't trying to understand science, he's trying to establish reasonable doubt. Which is a far cry from " proof".

 

[thaumaturgy]

He isn't trying to understand science, he's trying to establish reasonable doubt. Which is a far cry from " proof".

I am sure you are quite correct. That is essentially the Creationist approach. I think it might be why people with "legal" backgrounds such as True_Blue succeed in this area.

In the legal mindset the establishment of "Reasonable Doubt" is sufficient to propogate the "Controversy". It is completely unimportant to establish a better model of the system to explain the data, it is merely enough to "tear down the current model".

Again, since True_Blue is talking to scientists and not lay people on a jury, we will demand some test of his current "model" and as such it is imperative" that he prove the value of his pure-probability model (without reference to the known chemistry) to take the Temperate Challenge:

Can you use your model to predict the ratios of A, B and C formed in the above reaction.

I am afraid that until he takes this challenge we will have to hold his model as unproven in value.

It is a test of how serious he is about doing "real science" rather than merely legal wrangling at destroying one model without providing a solution of value.

 

[atomweaver]

Your point is unquestionably a good one, and I applaud you for this particular post. A really well-done probability model is going to be somewhere in between my model and yours, if you're basing the model on biochemistry. Model a DNA strand as being a collection of fridge magnets [molecules].

OK. [molecules] = nucleic acids

You want all the magnets to line up in a row to form a line of DNA. The problem is that the magnets, when they approach each other, will clump together in a cluster.

Only problem; nucleic acids don't clump like that.

Once they've clumped, takes a great deal of energy to unclump them again,

No, it doesn't.

meaning that you have to start over.

No, you wouldn't.

 

[atomweaver]

As an FYI, I don't think chemistry really is random. By the Second Law of Thermodynamics, chemistry is not random but malevolent with respect to life. With respect to complex systems of all kinds, chemistry is an independent force of destruction.

...which is why all those polymers, from the rubber on your tires, to the plastic housing of your computer are so well-known for spontaneously de-polymerizing.

...which is why the best wines are always the youngest ones, and the nasty aged ones have the least complexity to them, having progressively "fallen apart" due to the malevolent chemistry of the 2nd Law.

...which is why there are no ways of preserving complex organic structures for any length of time.

Oh, wait. None of those conclusions are true...

The rubber on your tires and the plastic housing on your computer don't spontaneously depolymerize.

The best wines are aged, and even once past their prime as wines, become vingear solutions rich with complex chemicals. They don't fall apart, chemically, instead they become more chemically complex, from simply sitting around for a long time...

Organic structures can be preserved for thousands of years, given the proper storage conditions...