Criteria for determining design

[AV1611VET]

One of the criteria for design is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[crjmurray]

One of the criteria for design is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Why do the only sensible criteria for design come from people that don't believe in design?

 

[AV1611VET]

Why do the only sensible criteria for design come from people that don't believe in design?

You lost me here.

Who doesn't believe in design?

If you were talking about me, did I not say that I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I do believe we were designed intelligently?

 

[crjmurray]

You lost me here.

Who doesn't believe in design?

If you were talking about me, did I not say that I don't believe in Intelligent Design, but I do believe we were designed intelligently?

Well then I rescind my last comment. That is actually a decent criteria though. If we let this thread go on for a few years I might be able to go through it and pick out everyone's individual posts and actually put together a criteria for design.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well then I rescind my last comment. That is actually a decent criteria though. If we let this thread go on for a few years I might be able to go through it and pick out everyone's individual posts and actually put together a criteria for design.

Wikipedia has several criteria listed under different disciplines, then concludes there's no one definition that satisfies them all.

I agree.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Woah, hold on there.

Who said anything about DNA? I'm just talking about self replicating molecules. Never said it had to be DNA.

You know what an enzyme is? An enzyme is a molecule that can take two other molecules and put them together (among other things). The enzyme itself is named after what it works on, with "-ase" added to the end. For example, an enzyme that works on Fructose is called Fructase.

Now let's say that we have an enzyme that takes Molecule A and Molecule B and joins them together into Molecule C. We could call this enzyme "Abcase."

Each molecule of Abcase would float around, grabbing an A molecule here, a B molecule there, and then joining them together into Molecule C.

ANd now, what if Molecule C turns out to be Abcase itself? Each Abcase molecule would be making more of itself out of molecule A and molecule B. That's self replication.

And if you had some Abcase molecules that were able to put the A and B molecules together in a slightly different way that made the joining stronger, then this would give it an advantage, and so natural selection would operate to increase the percentage of Abcase molecules with this alteration.

It is entirely plausible that this could have been the way life originally developed. Over time, as the molecules changed, they could have settled on a number of amino acids that worked better, and the molecule could have become more and more adapted to replicating itself. And so you would have the development of DNA as an adaptation to replicate itself better. Over many generations, the repair mechanisms we see today could have evolved as some of the many adaptations that evolution has produced. But it's a mistake to think that the first life forms needed those repair mechanisms, or even that they needed DNA at all.

Many here have encouraged us who don't believe in evolution to study the subject. Here is a very small example of what faces the biology student.

Restriction Enzymes - Background

I read the entire article, and still don't see how the information given supports evolution. The article reveals observation of a biological phenomenon, not proof of evolution. And where did those hundreds of enzymes come from?
Such articles reach up and grab substances from thin air, place them in a formula, and say, "See, this is evolution". Not so fast with the slight-of-hand, please.

 

[Kylie]

It is actually quite easy to create amino acids.

Miller?Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This only scratches the surface, and may not be an accurate reflection of the actual conditions on an early Earth, but it does demonstrate that amino acids are not that hard to find.

Evolution only needs a few things. It needs

• Something with the ability to make copies of itself
• The ability for small changes to occur during the copying process
• Some selective pressure that mean some of the changes make it easier to survive.

As long as these things are present, evolution will be able to act on them. The self-replicating molecules I described fit into this category.

 

[AV1611VET]

This only scratches the surface, and may not be an accurate reflection of the actual conditions on an early Earth, but it does demonstrate that amino acids are not that hard to find.

As I understand it, the Miller-Urey gadget needed a trap at the bottom (as depicted in the link) to trap gasses that would have destroyed the amino acids.

Nature has no such trap, and the same process that created the amino acids would have destroyed them.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

As I understand it, the Miller-Urey gadget needed a trap at the bottom (as depicted in the link) to trap gasses that would have destroyed the amino acids.

Nature has no such trap, and the same process that created the amino acids would have destroyed them.

This is what I mean. When you look closely at the theory you begin to see the magic needed to make it all work. Science presents evolution in great big chunks, forgetting that it's the small (impossible) details that damn the theory.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

This is what I mean. When you look closely at the theory you begin to see the magic needed to make it all work. Science presents evolution in great big chunks, forgetting that it's the small (impossible) details that damn the theory.

You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution again.

 

[sandybay]

This is what I mean. When you look closely at the theory you begin to see the magic needed to make it all work. Science presents evolution in great big chunks, forgetting that it's the small (impossible) details that damn the theory.

It's a good thing religions use miracles and not magic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is what I mean. When you look closely at the theory you begin to see the magic needed to make it all work. Science presents evolution in great big chunks, forgetting that it's the small (impossible) details that damn the theory.

And where do you think that magic is needed?

It is always rather amusing when believers in magic claim that magic is needed for evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's a good thing religions use miracles and not magic.

Miracles are fit the exact same definition as magic.


Most "magicians" will readily admit that what they do is not magic. They more properly call themselves "illusionists". They create an illusion of magic. It is amazing how many people are actually fooled by them. Of course once you figure out a magic trick it takes a lot of the fun out of it.

 

[AV1611VET]

Miracles are fit the exact same definition as magic.

Assuming I even understood this sentence, I'll disagree with it.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

It's a good thing religions use miracles and not magic.

Neither require magic and both require years of study.

 

[AV1611VET]

Neither require magic and both require years of study.

Studying what? Strong's Concordance? how to program a computer to correlate data? how to deny Scripture?

If not, please tell me how angiosperms existed for eons without the sun?

If you can't, then let's go with miracles, shall we?

(Unless you want to invoke Strong's Concordance to make the Bible say anything but what It said.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assuming I even understood this sentence, I'll disagree with it.

Then what is the difference between biblical miracles and magic?


The whole creation event in the Bible is simply a series of spoken magical spells.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Studying what? Strong's Concordance? how to program a computer to correlate data? how to deny Scripture?

If not, please tell me how angiosperms existed for eons without the sun?

If you can't, then let's go with miracles, shall we?

(Unless you want to invoke Strong's Concordance to make the Bible say anything but what It said.)

I do believe that lchm realizes that the creation account was allegory at best. It has rather little to do with reality.

 

[whois]

It is actually quite easy to create amino acids.

Miller?Urey experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This only scratches the surface, and may not be an accurate reflection of the actual conditions on an early Earth, but it does demonstrate that amino acids are not that hard to find.

Evolution only needs a few things. It needs

• Something with the ability to make copies of itself
• The ability for small changes to occur during the copying process
• Some selective pressure that mean some of the changes make it easier to survive.

As long as these things are present, evolution will be able to act on them. The self-replicating molecules I described fit into this category.

there are a few problems with this.
small colonies of RNA quickly become non viable unless it has fresh infusion of RNA.
another is, the incorporation of RNA into a lipid layer has never been demonstrated.
third is, miller-urey produced a racemic mixture of amino acids, proteins will not form under these conditions.
last but not least is, this must happen along a timeline in one operation.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Studying what? Strong's Concordance? how to program a computer to correlate data? how to deny Scripture?

If not, please tell me how angiosperms existed for eons without the sun?

If you can't, then let's go with miracles, shall we?

(Unless you want to invoke Strong's Concordance to make the Bible say anything but what It said.)

Generally speaking Evolution, has very little to do with establishing criteria for origins and is more focused on what happened after that and since.

As you obviously have a very narrow understanding of what it means to study the Bible: i.e. Learning the meaning of words can be helpful, but you'll need to graduate beyond primitive concordances if you want to come to grips with the meatier subjects. In time grasshopper, in time.

As you've admitted on this public forum, to not having the mental fortitude to engage in the subject of study (with regards to Evolution) -- I think you know that means you'll be stuck invoking the divine for the rest of your days on earth. (unless you wake up and stop playing silly games)