Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Zlatanara]

I see sloppy plagiarism from Stephen Meyers' book "Signature in the Cell" and a misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Simple Question once again, How did the first life originate from a prebiotic soup through chemical evolution? What was the minimum requirement for that life to qualify for self-organization in terms of protein and amino acid arrangements. I believe least complex cell should have about 100-200 proteins and amino acids. Also how did the DNA and its sequence hypothesis originate through this process?

What in your opinion is the reason there is no chemical bonds link the nucleotide bases of DNA?

 

[Zlatanara]

I wouldn´t know how else it could possibly be explained - seeing that a mere assertion doesn´t qualify as an explanation.
But I am open to learning about such an explanation.

i like your attitude we are not perfect give your best answer

 

[Foxhole87]

Yes indeed that's a great book, it is one of my favorite reads of all time

i did not know that every single post needs a citation requirement in this forum? if so i will do it in future

because i thought those were for high school only.

So are you going to ditch this bullet? which i am fine with though

you never explained how the DNA/RNA might have originated

If you're going to try and tackle a colossally complex issue by way of a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question, it sure helps if we understand the source of your argument.

A google search for "origin of DNA" yields this, which is reasonably recent (within the last couple years) which addresses the subject: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/ Cliffnotes: It is still a mystery, and to extrapolate "therefore, X" from that is a fallacious argument from ignorance (which is the entirety of Intelligent Design anyway).

 

[Zlatanara]

If you're going to try and tackle a colossally complex issue by way of a tongue-in-cheek rhetorical question, it sure helps if we understand the source of your argument.

A google search for "origin of DNA" yields this, which is reasonably recent (within the last couple years) which addresses the subject: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6360/ Cliffnotes: It is still a mystery, and to extrapolate "therefore, X" from that is a fallacious argument from ignorance (which is the entirety of Intelligent Design anyway).

right so indeed we still don't have an answer to origin of life through chemical and natural laws right?

i might sound like a vitalist to you well but reductionists also need a certain amount of explanations to be done though.

 

[Zlatanara]

its hard to find answers through chemistry when something does not even show a chemical bond

so i would recommend people to be open to both vitalism and reductionism. Taking one side will never give you the full answer to life

peace

 

[quatona]

i like your attitude we are not perfect give your best answer

To which question, exactly?

 

[Foxhole87]

right so indeed we still don't have an answer to origin of life through chemical and natural laws right?

i might sound like a vitalist to you well but reductionists also need a certain amount of explanations to be done though.

There's no reason to suspect that anything (life or otherwise) was produced by anything other than natural laws, though.

As a non-credible, non-qualified layperson, I'm compelled to concur with what the astonishingly overwhelming number of credible and qualified experts agree on: life has a natural start.

 

[Zlatanara]

To which question, exactly?

you can deal with post number #1341

we don't need to be right or wrong, we can use this as a way to expand our knowledge

so give your best answer to this

 

[Foxhole87]

its hard to find answers through chemistry when something does not even show a chemical bond

so i would recommend people to be open to both vitalism and reductionism. Taking one side will never give you the full answer to life

peace

Vitalism, as you're using it, represents a useless appeal to the unknown and pretends said appeal answers a question.

 

[Zlatanara]

There's no reason to suspect that anything (life or otherwise) was produced by anything other than natural laws, though.

As a non-credible, non-qualified layperson, I'm compelled to concur with what the astonishingly overwhelming number of credible and qualified experts agree on: life has a natural start.

at-least we both agree that everything cannot be explained chemically, The spoon and Folk might be the same chemically but the arrangements of them in the tables cannot be explained based on that. Certain things are well arranged in life and the origin of the first living cell will be a great mystery for years to come.

 

[quatona]

you can deal with post number #1341

I´m not a natural scientist - I have absolutely no clue.

we don't need to be right or wrong, we can use this as a way to expand our knowledge

Wild uninformed speculation doesn´t tend expand knowledge.

so give your best answer to this

My best answer is "I don´t know".

All I am concerned with is the tactics of demanding a natural explanation, and if none can (yet?) be given, mumbo-jumbo assertions (with no explanatory content or power) are presented as "explanations". You know, double standards and all that.

 

[Zlatanara]

Vitalism, as you're using it, represents a useless appeal to the unknown and pretends said appeal answers a question.

Like i said before, until everything can be explained through reductionism the gaps will be fulfilled through vitalism for me, in terms of evolution (not chemical evolution but the Darwins evolution before Francis stripped DNA) i agree on almost everything it brings because a fact is a fact. But when it comes to chemical evolution i believe there was a touch of a guidance

the day even those are explained by reductionist i might re-consider.

 

[Zlatanara]

I´m not a natural scientist - I have absolutely no clue.


Wild uninformed speculation doesn´t tend expand knowledge.


My best answer is "I don´t know".

All I am concerned with is the tactics of demanding a natural explanation, and if none can (yet?) be given, mumbo-jumbo assertions (with no explanatory content or power) are presented as "explanations". You know, double standards and all that.

thanks, i respect your answer buddy.

who am i to judge your answer? i am here just to share my point of view and get others

 

[quatona]

thanks, i respect your answer buddy.

who am i to judge your answer? i am here just to share my point of view and get others

Yes, that´s what we are here for - I am just trying to make sure my answer is understood.

 

[Foxhole87]

at-least we both agree that everything cannot be explained chemically, The spoon and Folk might be the same chemically but the arrangements of them in the tables cannot be explained based on that. Certain things are well arranged in life and the origin of the first living cell will be a great mystery for years to come.

No, we don't agree. I do not believe that "not everything can be explained chemically" with regards to the origin of life.

Nor does your analogy mean anything.

 

[Foxhole87]

Like i said before, until everything can be explained through reductionism the gaps will be fulfilled through vitalism for me, in terms of evolution (not chemical evolution but the Darwins evolution before Francis stripped DNA) i agree on almost everything it brings because a fact is a fact. But when it comes to chemical evolution i believe there was a touch of a guidance

the day even those are explained by reductionist i might re-consider.

I feel like the non-virtue of appealing to ignorance is a common string throughout all religious perspectives.

"Until reductionists answer X, therefore vitalism" is a bad argument.

 

[Zlatanara]

I feel like the non-virtue of appealing to ignorance is a common string throughout all religious perspectives.

"Until reductionists answer X, therefore vitalism" is a bad argument.

until i get the final blow that Dawkins predicted in the 90s to chemical evolution, my faith on God will be there. The more i learn about DNA, the more i see a Coder of a software

i respect your way of life, i hope you can respect different people too

after-all life is a learning curve for everyone.

 

[Zlatanara]

Yes, that´s what we are here for - I am just trying to make sure my answer is understood.

thanks for the responds

 

[Foxhole87]

until i get the final blow that Dawkins predicted in the 90s to chemical evolution, my faith on God will be there. The more i learn about DNA, the more i see a Coder of a software

i respect your way of life, i hope you can respect different people too

after-all life is a learning curve for everyone.

I respect people, but I don't respect unreasonable opinions.
So long as you understand the unambiguous fallacy you are sticking to, I suppose I've done all I can.

 

[Zlatanara]

I respect people, but I don't respect unreasonable opinions.
So long as you understand the unambiguous fallacy you are sticking to, I suppose I've done all I can.

well you admitted that you don't know the answer for chemical evolution, i never said i know it. But i have my license to believe in a creator.

i believe in every science that you believe, but in addition i believe in God too, how does that make me sticking to fallacy?

was it a crime for asking your view of chemical evolution compared to mine? i never said mine was the only answer but i said mine is also a way to approach especially with the complexity and unconnected bonds which are unchallenged.