Abiogenesis

[Speedwell]

Lol, evolution isn't capable of design. It's not an intelligent process.

Actually, in a way it is. The interacting stochastic processes which make up the evolving biosphere have enough information processing capacity to account for the diversity and complexity which we observe.

The vast compexity of creation, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function leads us to conclude irreducible complexity in biology, then conclude that such structures were designed.

So far, "reverse engineering" shows that all biological structures which have been examined are capable of being produced by evolution. But even so, no mechanism has been suggested by which the "design" gets from the designer into the structure. Without that, you've got nothing.

 

[renniks]

Then there may be some problems on your side. In the creation story, if one reads it literally, God does not give Adam and Eve the ability to tell right from wrong and then blames them for eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Remember that the did not know that they had done something wrong until after they ate from the tree. Then God punishes them for his error. That paints God as incompetent and evil. And it does not get any better. If one reads the Bible at all literally it does this again and again. A literal interpretation of the Bible is bad theology.

You obviously misunderstand the story. They didn't need to know right from wrong to follow the one rule thier Creator gave them.
And you start off by posturing about Good and evil, as if it could even exist. Who told you what was good or evil?
Why judge God to be evil in a story you believe is a myth? Good or evil don't exist in a completely naturalistic world.

 

[Speedwell]

And yet they still have thier theories, which are far too often put out there as if they were fact.

No. In this case we were talking about the emergence of the universe. No one knows where the hot, dense condition came from, from which the universe expanded.

But it appears you are still confused about the difference between a theory and a fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, evolution isn't capable of design. It's not an intelligent process.

The vast compexity of creation, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function leads us to conclude irreducible complexity in biology, then conclude that such structures were designed.

Why do you think that it needs to be? What you just made was an argument from ignorance. You need to support your claims of why evolution cannot develop new traits. We can provide articles of how new traits arise.

Though there are other facts the two easiest to understand are random mutation and selection. One cannot focus only on one. Both are needed for evolution. Variation, which includes more than random mutation, introduces new traits, neutral, good, and bad. Natural selection automatically weeds out the bad and keeps the good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You obviously misunderstand the story. They didn't need to know right from wrong to follow the one rule thier Creator gave them.
And you start off by posturing about Good and evil, as if it could even exist. Who told you what was good or evil?
Why judge God to be evil in a story you believe is a myth? Good or evil don't exist in a completely naturalistic world.

That is not what the story says or even implies. Now you are adding context to the story that is unjustified because it fails as written. This is called apologetics, it is not a proper way of debating. It is making excuses for your interpretation of the Bible.

And no, I do not start out "posturing". I probably have a better understanding of good and and evil than you do. And you forgot, according to the Genesis story I can tell the difference between Good and Evil. Your theology is inconsistent again.

 

[Strathos]

Well not really. To believe in a Flat Earth before people could reason the problem out, and especially for a land based people a Flat Earth belief was not irrational. It did not imply that the believers had poor reasoning skills. Again with the qualifier of "at that time". Today is a different matter.

If they literally believed there was a mountain where every place on earth was visible from, then they would have also had to believe that said mountain could be seen from anywhere on earth. They knew that wasn't true.

 

[renniks]

That's not what I asked you.

What are the hallmarks of design? How does a crystal differ from a flower in the language of design?

I see no real difference. If I have to create an intricate crystal I would perhaps need more intelligence and a a better understanding of geometry... but either on shows beauty and intentionality, and intelligence.

 

[renniks]

No, I can read and understand the Bible better than many Christians because I do not approach it with a false narrative. I read it in context with knowledge of the people that wrote it. You have to cherry pick which parts you say are literal and which parts are not because of "reasons". Remember that I do not believe in Satan either. Now one can claim that that story described a vision, but then why the tall mountain? That makes no sense unless the writer believed in a Flat Earth

Lol, because obviously Christians aren't capable of researching who wrote each book.
The story has nothing to do with the Earth's shape. You're reading something into it that's not there.

 

[renniks]

Why do you think that it needs to be? What you just made was an argument from ignorance. You need to support your claims of why evolution cannot develop new traits. We can provide articles of how new traits arise.

Though there are other facts the two easiest to understand are random mutation and selection. One cannot focus only on one. Both are needed for evolution. Variation, which includes more than random mutation, introduces new traits, neutral, good, and bad. Natural selection automatically weeds out the bad and keeps the good.

The dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species. And yet you want me to believe it created all life...

Most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, BTW.

In December 2003, the biology journal BioEssays published a special issue on
“molecular machines.” In the introductory essay to that issue, Adam Wilkins, the
editor of BioEssays, remarked, “The articles included in this issue demonstrate
some striking parallels between artifactual and biological/molecular machines. In
the first place, molecular machines, like man-made machines, perform highly
specific functions. Second, the macromolecular machine complexes feature
multiple parts that interact in distinct and precise ways, with defined inputs and
outputs. Third, many of these machines have parts that can be used in other
molecular machines (at least, with slight modification), comparable to the
interchangeable parts of artificial machines. Finally, and not least, they have the
cardinal attribute of machines: they all convert energy into some form of ‘work’.”
How, then, do biologists explain the origin of such structures? They don’t. In
2001, cell biologist Franklin Harold published The Way of the Cell with Oxford
University Press. In it he remarked: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of
wishful speculations.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Lol, because obviously Christians aren't capable of researching who wrote each book.
The story has nothing to do with the Earth's shape. You're reading something into it that's not there.

Some Christians can. Some Christians will not let themselves due to preconceived notions. No one claims that all Biblical historians are not Christians, well except for Christians that demand those that do not agree with them are "not true Christians".

Many Christians can look at the bigger picture without demanding that the Bible is literally true.

And how am I reading something into the story that is not there?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species. And yet you want me to believe it created all life...

No, not "unpredictable". In fact the theory was used to find Tiktaalik based on predictions from the theory. If it was an "unpredicatable" process . And modern work in vaccinations is based upon predictions made with the theory of evolution. Remember, there is no micro, there is no macro, it is all evolution.

Most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, BTW.

In December 2003, the biology journal BioEssays published a special issue on
“molecular machines.” In the introductory essay to that issue, Adam Wilkins, the
editor of BioEssays, remarked, “The articles included in this issue demonstrate
some striking parallels between artifactual and biological/molecular machines. In
the first place, molecular machines, like man-made machines, perform highly
specific functions. Second, the macromolecular machine complexes feature
multiple parts that interact in distinct and precise ways, with defined inputs and
outputs. Third, many of these machines have parts that can be used in other
molecular machines (at least, with slight modification), comparable to the
interchangeable parts of artificial machines. Finally, and not least, they have the
cardinal attribute of machines: they all convert energy into some form of ‘work’.”
How, then, do biologists explain the origin of such structures? They don’t. In
2001, cell biologist Franklin Harold published The Way of the Cell with Oxford
University Press. In it he remarked: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of
wishful speculations.”

What makes you think that biologists cannot explain that? At that time those were very recent discoveries. It takes time to come up with explanations for observations. But since then the evolution of those "machines" has become well understood. For example the evolution of the rotator flagellum is now well understood. It is Behe's favorite example and of "Irreducible Complexity" and that idea has been torn to shreads.

 

[renniks]

And no, I do not start out "posturing". I probably have a better understanding of good and and evil than you do. And you forgot, according to the Genesis story I can tell the difference between Good and Evil. Your theology is inconsistent again.

But your worldview has no place for good or evil. Is the corona virus good? Is it evil? Or is it just what it is? if everything exists only as a result of natural selection, all you have is an unbroken chain of causation, that is neither good or bad whether it kills or gives life. It just is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

But your worldview has no place for good or evil. Is the corona virus good? Is it evil? Or is it just what it is? if everything exists only as a result of natural selection, all you have is an unbroken chain of causation, that is neither good or bad whether it kills or gives life. It just is.

This is a statement based on your own ignorance. There are rational ways to determine right and wrong. In fact most people get their right and wrong by rational thought. First one has to admit the obvious. We are people with a hopefully a rational self interest.

Second what is most important to us is for what is good for mankind as a whole.

Third, we all want freedom to do as we please.

Fourth, sometimes excessive freedom results in harm to others so there must be limits to it. There is a saying: "Your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face.".

So we need a way to maximize freedom and minimize harm. Ethics and morals arise from that. No need of a God. And yes, it is subjective but so is what is right and wrong in the Bible.

 

[Speedwell]

The dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process...

How do you know it's purposeless?

Most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, BTW.

In December 2003, the biology journal BioEssays published a special issue on
“molecular machines.” In the introductory essay to that issue, Adam Wilkins, the
editor of BioEssays, remarked, “The articles included in this issue demonstrate
some striking parallels between artifactual and biological/molecular machines. In
the first place, molecular machines, like man-made machines, perform highly
specific functions. Second, the macromolecular machine complexes feature
multiple parts that interact in distinct and precise ways, with defined inputs and
outputs. Third, many of these machines have parts that can be used in other
molecular machines (at least, with slight modification), comparable to the
interchangeable parts of artificial machines. Finally, and not least, they have the
cardinal attribute of machines: they all convert energy into some form of ‘work’.”
How, then, do biologists explain the origin of such structures? They don’t. In
2001, cell biologist Franklin Harold published The Way of the Cell with Oxford
University Press. In it he remarked: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian
accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of
wishful speculations.”

And you still have no explanation for how the design gets into the system.

 

[renniks]

No, not "unpredictable". In fact the theory was used to find Tiktaalik based on predictions from the theory. If it was an "unpredicatable" process . And modern work in vaccinations is based upon predictions made with the theory of evolution. Remember, there is no micro, there is no macro, it is all evolution.




What makes you think that biologists cannot explain that? At that time those were very recent discoveries. It takes time to come up with explanations for observations. But since then the evolution of those "machines" has become well understood. For example the evolution of the rotator flagellum is now well understood. It is Behe's favorite example and of "Irreducible Complexity" and that idea has been torn to shreads.

Sure we understand it better. Now we know it's much more complex and so, they will just claim evolution did it, even though it's not possible.

"
From the analysis of seven straight mutants in B. subtilis and two straight mutants in P. aeruginosa, we confirmed the bi-state mechanism of polymorphic switching: that only two types of subunit-subunit interactions (L-type and R- type) exist. This suggests that the wild type flagellar filaments with swimming motility must adopt an intricate “balance” in the flagellin sequence, so that the sequence does not generate a strong preference for either the L- or R- type conformation. Such a balance is required for the sharp transition of flagellar filaments switching between different waveforms during bacterial swimming and tumbling. The fact that straight phenotypes can be readily found due to single point mutations indicates that this balance is exquisitely sensitive to small changes, such as a single mutation, and can be easily tipped towards a dominant conformation, either all L or all R, which eliminates motility."

Amazing. Yet they attribute this all to evolution. They speak of how the sequence of flagellin proteins has been “tuned” by evolution. Incredibly, at the end of the paper, they appeal to convergence to claim that blind chance hit the jackpot on fine tuning three different times in all three kingdoms of life!

Nope.. I just don't have enough Faith in this kind of chance development to be an atheist!

 

[renniks]

And you still have no explanation for how the design gets into the system.

Design is the system, whatever the system is.

 

[renniks]

So we need a way to maximize freedom and minimize harm. Ethics and morals arise from that. No need of a God. And yes, it is subjective

If it's subjective I can change it at any time... Like when I really want something you have, or decide that atheists taste good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure we understand it better. Now we know it's much more complex and so, they will just claim evolution did it, even though it's not possible.

"
From the analysis of seven straight mutants in B. subtilis and two straight mutants in P. aeruginosa, we confirmed the bi-state mechanism of polymorphic switching: that only two types of subunit-subunit interactions (L-type and R- type) exist. This suggests that the wild type flagellar filaments with swimming motility must adopt an intricate “balance” in the flagellin sequence, so that the sequence does not generate a strong preference for either the L- or R- type conformation. Such a balance is required for the sharp transition of flagellar filaments switching between different waveforms during bacterial swimming and tumbling. The fact that straight phenotypes can be readily found due to single point mutations indicates that this balance is exquisitely sensitive to small changes, such as a single mutation, and can be easily tipped towards a dominant conformation, either all L or all R, which eliminates motility."

Amazing. Yet they attribute this all to evolution. They speak of how the sequence of flagellin proteins has been “tuned” by evolution. Incredibly, at the end of the paper, they appeal to convergence to claim that blind chance hit the jackpot on fine tuning three different times in all three kingdoms of life!

Nope.. I just don't have enough Faith in this kind of chance development to be an atheist!

Your inability to understand does not refute evolution. Just as your inability to understand gravity does not refute gravity. Arguments From Ignorance are logical fallacies.

 

[Speedwell]

Design is the system, whatever the system is.

You mean design just "appears" in the system? By magic?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it's subjective I can change it at any time... Like when I really want something you have, or decide that atheists taste good.

No, that is not how it works. Because it is subjective it can be improved later. That is an advantage. It is too bad that such a simple concept is not understood by you. One of course needs to be able to reason rationally to u understand this.