Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Foxhole87]

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.

You told us you are sticking God in (well, "vitalism") where science has a gap in knowledge. That's a textbook example of the argument from ignorance.

 

[Zlatanara]

You told us you are sticking God in (well, "vitalism") where science has a gap in knowledge. That's a textbook example of the argument from ignorance.

no i said extremism of vitalism is also bad at the same time extremism of reductionism is also bad

for example there are believers of God who completely ignore science which is bad, also there are people of science who completely try to judge the world based on chemical only which is once again bad.

Until we get that final blow of punch through chemical evolution mystery, this issue will remain open

 

[Foxhole87]

no i said extremism of vitalism is also bad at the same time extremism of reductionism is also bad

for example there are believers of God who completely ignore science which is bad, also there are people of science who completely try to judge the world based on chemical only which is once again bad.

Until we get that final blow of punch through chemical evolution mystery, this issue will remain open

I'll put twenty bucks on the answer will be "entirely natural processes".
And I'll put another twenty bucks on "and religious folk will move the goalposts back".

 

[Zlatanara]

I'll put twenty bucks on the answer will be "entirely natural processes".
And I'll put another twenty bucks on "and religious folk will move the goalposts back".

well you are free to base any of your arguments based on ''will be'' i guess that is also another way of having faith on something.

Like i said before anyone that goes extreme either in reductionism or vitalism without having the final blow in their pocket will indeed have to rely on bets and ''will be''

i like to keep an open mind on both doors there is no harm of believing in God for me so i am yet to find a real reason to give up on him.

 

[stevevw]

And I showed you that that was not the case.

No you didn't have any qualified support for what you said. You couldn't disprove that Carson didn't know enough basics of the brain to realize what level of complexity it had. You just stated your personal opinion and you don’t know Carson enough to know for sure his level of knowledge of the brain. So there was a lot of assumption in your reply. Even I as a layman realize the brain has a high level of complexity. Surely a brain surgeon would know more than me.

You depicted Carson as an authority in an area in which he lacks expertise. I judged him no harsher than anyone else who lacks the relevant expertise.

No I didn't. The words I used was he would know more than the average person about the brain and therefore would know more about how much it would take for evolution to evolve a brain. You took it to another level by refusing to give him any credit at all. In fact you played hard ball with him because on the one hand you said you don’t have to be an expert to know and then stated he wasn't an expert to know.

The appearance of design can be misleading.

It can also be an indication of something designed. They use more than the appearance to assess design in nature. They look at a deeper level in the patterns, codes, systems, languages and ordered information as well and these have been found in how nature works. Especially our genetic code as they have now found secondary layers of coded information which is making it even more complex and coded.

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code
http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/12/12/scientists-discover-double-meaning-in-genetic-code/
Functional information and the emergence of biocomplexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8574.full
DNA codes and information: formal structures and relational causes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18465197

I've addressed your misconceptions about natural processes and randomness repeatedly.

So how do natural processes create something that looks so designed it is better than any design that humans can do and yet it is the product of an unintelligent naturalistic process.The problem is evolution cannot explain how complex coded information that operates on multi levels at the same time can be mutated into existence. It takes more than just adaptation and selection process. It is not always about selecting something because it has a benefit. Life isn't just all about reduction. Some info is just there because it has a secondary role and it is not immediately apparent. Some is so interconnected and intertwined that it cannot be selected in a step wise fashion. Sometimes there isn't a strong selective benefit where the smaller components of complex systems is identified and selected. Natural selection isn't the great creator that it is made out to be.

Then you should have no difficulty finding specific examples to consider.

Yeah that’s no problem.
Functioning 'mechanical gears' seen in nature for the first time
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-functioning-mechanical-gears-nature.html
The “Wow! signal” of the terrestrial genetic code
A statistically strong intelligent-like “signal” in the genetic code is then a testable consequence of such scenario. Here we show that the terrestrial code displays a thorough precision-type orderliness matching the criteria to be considered an informational signal. Simple arrangements of the code reveal an ensemble of arithmetical and ideographical patterns of the same symbolic language.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103513000791
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2217542/
Evidence Of Design In Bird Feathers And Avian Respiration
http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/dne-volumes/4/2/399

Again, complexity does not entail design.

It does when that complexity can arrive out of no where or be there to quickly for a a slow and gradual process like evolution to have evolved it. Complexity is one of the hallmarks of design when it cannot be explained how it was created out of nothing or much more simple things that didn't have that complexity.

Again, complexity does not entail design.

You seem to be conflating "complexity" and "structure" with "design."

I have qualified that it is not just complexity alone but a range of other qualities like ordered structures and systems, language, codes and patterns which hold a high degree of info. These have been found in nature and make our human created designs look like child's play. So something has a high degree of design capability and creation of it. Evolution likes to attribute it to mother nature. But mother nature is itself a product of design and its ability to create and design has been there from the beginning. Its complexity has been there from a very early stage. Too early for evolution to have gradually evolved it.

How does ID explain it? I've asked you this repeatedly.

And I have posted evidence to explain this on many occasions so you havnt checked it to find out. I am sure in among the many papers and links I have posted you will find the answer to how ID makes sense to how there is so much design in life and existence. Ive gone over this with the fine tuning argument, the genetic code for life, how mutations cannot evolve fit and complex living things and posted the evidence.

No.

Well thats something we can agree on.

Yeah, your understanding of it seems to be as bad as his.

Obviously we will disagree on this as almost all people who disagree with what evolution claims will think the same. We question the ability of evolution to create complex new functions out of something that wasnt there and make functional fit living things. The tests done back up what we say. No verifiable tests have shown macro evolution to work and thats where it counts no becuase you or someone else may say so.

Then why do you keep referring to it?

Because its one of the qualities of design. See the thing is you keep saying that nature can make complex things without referring to design but you cant give an explanation of how this can happen. You can throw up examples but when we look at the details of how they are formed it either has some design that cant be explained in natural terms or the process for how it can be formed naturally cannot be verified or explained. You need verifiable support not claims.

Says who?

More like says nothing. No one can explain in detail how our present genetic code could have evolved let alone a massive additional amount that has been discovered in our so called junk. Lets say we have billions of bits of components and info in our DNA. Many with the secondary coded info that they have recently discovered. Many systems with systems with systems making it harder and harder to evolve through a step wise gradual process of evolution. Its hard enough for them to prove and explain how small simple steps can mutate without a cost to fitness in a reasonable amount of time.

So if they are adding billions of bits of additional complexity and info wouldn't that just add more time and explanation as to how it could happen. If there is say 1 beneficial mutation in 10 million of whatever they doesn't that indicate that it takes a long time to evolve things. If there is billions of components of complex info would billions of bits take an awfully long time when beneficial mutations are rare and life has only been around for a few billion years.

Wouldn't the designer also be complex, in which case wouldn't the design require an explanation that appeals to another designer?

We would have to go back to something phenomenal to be able to explain how life and existence came about. One thing everyone can agree on is that something amazing must have happened for life to start. If God is the one who created life and existence, time, space and reality then wouldn't He be beyond and outside this. Wouldn't the cause and effect you are using be irrelevant in that situation.

As the Bible states about the beginning of existence.
The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.
John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Colossians 1:16–17
16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

No one claimed it came from thin air.

But you are inferring that snowflakes are a random act with design. Isn't that how a naturalistic process works. It cannot have any real reason for existence or intelligent design. It just has an appearance of design which was fluked by nature.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No you didn't have any qualified support for what you said. You couldn't disprove that Carson didn't know enough basics of the brain to realize what level of complexity it had. You just stated your personal opinion and you don’t know Carson enough to know for sure his level of knowledge of the brain. So there was a lot of assumption in your reply. Even I as a layman realize the brain has a high level of complexity. Surely a brain surgeon would know more than me.

We weren't talking about his level of knowledge of the brain. You are misrepresenting the entire conversation.

No I didn't. The words I used was he would know more than the average person about the brain and therefore would know more about how much it would take for evolution to evolve a brain.

And I showed you that this could not be assumed.

You took it to another level by refusing to give him any credit at all. In fact you played hard ball with him because on the one hand you said you don’t have to be an expert to know and then stated he wasn't an expert to know.

Wrong. You are misrepresenting the conversation.

It can also be an indication of something designed. They use more than the appearance to assess design in nature. They look at a deeper level in the patterns, codes, systems, languages and ordered information as well and these have been found in how nature works. Especially our genetic code as they have now found secondary layers of coded information which is making it even more complex and coded.

Already addressed this: complexity does not entail design.

Yeah that’s no problem.

Examples of design, steve.

It does when that complexity can arrive out of no where or be there to quickly for a a slow and gradual process like evolution to have evolved it. Complexity is one of the hallmarks of design when it cannot be explained how it was created out of nothing or much more simple things that didn't have that complexity.

This is hilarious. If it arrives apparently out of no where you conclude that it must have been designed. If it emerges from a step-wise process you also conclude that it must have been designed.

I have qualified that it is not just complexity alone but a range of other qualities like ordered structures and systems, language, codes and patterns which hold a high degree of info. These have been found in nature and make our human created designs look like child's play.

As always, you are assuming that natural processes are incapable of producing complex structure.

And I have posted evidence to explain this on many occasions so you havnt checked it to find out. I am sure in among the many papers and links I have posted you will find the answer to how ID makes sense to how there is so much design in life and existence.

Explain it in your own words. Present an argument. I'm tired of examining your links only to find that they don't support what you are saying.

Obviously we will disagree on this as almost all people who disagree with what evolution claims will think the same. We question the ability of evolution to create complex new functions out of something that wasnt there and make functional fit living things. The tests done back up what we say. No verifiable tests have shown macro evolution to work and thats where it counts no becuase you or someone else may say so.

You are wrong. You have been shown to be wrong. Go back, re-read.

Because its one of the qualities of design. See the thing is you keep saying that nature can make complex things without referring to design but you cant give an explanation of how this can happen. You can throw up examples but when we look at the details of how they are formed it either has some design that cant be explained in natural terms or the process for how it can be formed naturally cannot be verified or explained. You need verifiable support not claims.

Errr... where have you shown that snow flakes require specific snow flake designers?

More like says nothing. No one can explain in detail how our present genetic code could have evolved let alone a massive additional amount that has been discovered in our so called junk. Lets say we have billions of bits of components and info in our DNA. Many with the secondary coded info that they have recently discovered. Many systems with systems with systems making it harder and harder to evolve through a step wise gradual process of evolution. Its hard enough for them to prove and explain how small simple steps can mutate without a cost to fitness in a reasonable amount of time.

Argument from ignorance?

We would have to go back to something phenomenal to be able to explain how life and existence came about. One thing everyone can agree on is that something amazing must have happened for life to start. If God is the one who created life and existence, time, space and reality then wouldn't He be beyond and outside this. Wouldn't the cause and effect you are using be irrelevant in that situation.

Special pleading.

But you are inferring that snowflakes are a random act with design. Isn't that how a naturalistic process works.

No! How many times do I have to say it before it gets through to you? NO. See? This is yet another example of you not listening.

 

[stevevw]

How is the damaged non-designed? Are you saying that the damage from the madness in a hurricane is simply the result of objects following the basic laws of physics? Are you saying the trajectory of a comet is simply the result of an object following the basic laws of physics?

I am saying I haven’t got that level of ability to really assess the deeper math’s behind these things. That’s why I posted the papers on how they calculate design and non design with probability ect. All I know is that most things can have an element of design and of randomness. It doesn't have to be all design and all random. There can be a level of information which i not designed and non designed things can have a level of what may seem designed on the surface but breaks down at deeper level. Design has to have far reaching connections and higher levels of information.

That's where you don clown shoes and a squeaky red nose. "DERP EVERYTHING IS BOTH DESIGNED AND NOT DESIGNED". This is a nonsense answer and definitely indicative of what you've spend over five dozen pages in this thread doing.

Well how is it that the experts will say that there can be design and non design in things. Did you read any of those papers. I am not posting what I personally think. I am repeating what I have read from the papers and experts. I am not that clever that I can know these things off my own knowledge.

Yes, and the snowflake is simply the result of objects following basic laws of physics.

And where did those basic laws of physics come from.

Let this be echoed loudly for you to understand: "complex" doesn't mean "random". Okay? This is the most important thing you seem to not understand either by ignorance or purposeful non-concession. Until you understand this, until you understand that a complex natural process doesn't make something "random", you will continue to believe the outright ridiculous garbage you do with regards to snowflakes and evolution and everything in between.

Fair enough

Indeed they can; snowflakes that look nothing like a six-sided figure can arise, and that too is simply the result of objects following basic laws of physics.

That’s what I am saying. A snowflake can be affected by the temperature as it falls. They need a certain level of cold temp to form. If they don’t get this they can be deformed and that’s where you can get some that don’t have the hexagon shape of have parts missing because they melted. This is probably the random part of how they are made or the things they can be subject to that are outside the basic physics that form snowflakes.

First you said that the basic shape won't always be produced, and now you're saying the opposite. Yikes.

I cant remember saying that. Maybe your thinking when I said that they may not produce the right shapes if the temperature isn't right. But the basic physics of water molecules have certain patterns which come out as hexagon shapes. Even though it seems like there are unlimited patterns there are actually a certain amount of patterns and they repeat. But they can have variations of those patterns as well depending on the other factors like temperature.

And the basic physical laws that say there can only be two outcomes to a coin toss are the same ones that say a snowflake will have whatever shape it takes.

Yes but what about the odds for those two outcomes. If you throw the coins up a 1000 times what are the chances of getting 1000 heads. Is the fact that you can get heads of tails in those 1000 throws random? If you threw the coins up 1000 times and got 1000 heads would you think something’s was going on beyond a random throw. So if you find something in nature that acts like getting 1000 heads in a row would think it was a case of randomness or that there was something more going on. Would you think that there was some controlling factor that had an influence on ensuring the results were 1000 heads? That would be the difference.

AGAIN: Just because something is "complex" does not make an outcome "random".

OK I think I get your message. I havnt stated that complexity alone is a sign of design. Its also about levels of information, algorithms, patterns, codes, systems, languages ect as well and whether they are ordered organized.

WIT is an irrelevant pseduo-rag of a "journal".

Those papers are open access and peer reviewed papers so they are just as relevant as any.
WIT Press is a publisher of high-end scientific books and journals, available both electronically and in print. With over 30 years of experience in scitech publishing, WIT Press produces books that enable researchers, engineers, scientists, graduate students and managers within industry to remain up-to-date with the latest developments in their fields.

WIT Press also publishes the conference proceedings of the Wessex Institute of Technology and a number of specialised research monographs and edited works. Works are available in hard copy and online, much of which is available through the WIT Press eLibrary

There's nothing in this article which supports any claim you are making. You are illicitly trying to prop up your position by referring to articles which don't agree with your claim and hoping that you can dazzle the audience with obscurity. It isn't working.

You must be reading something else.

Gravity, fluid dynamics.

Just a quick search finds a few items that talk about the randomness of fluid dynamics.
Turbulence and Random Processes in Fluid Mechanics
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03091928708210115#.Vgk2ZW4oTfc

Why? Under what mechanisms?

No, if the two mountainsides are different, they aren't the same avalanche

If we did a test where we sent an avalanche down the same path twice except one time we had an unobstructed path and then we had an obstructed path the results would be different. Debris would end up in different locations. Other effects such as the course of the avalanche may be diverted into an area where it causes a secondary avalanche or any number of different consequences. The point is the end results are different because of the circumstances that happen to randomly be there.

So as I said there are certain elements of the avalanche that are designed and there are certain aspects that are randomly affected depending on the individual circumstances for each situation. Though they are different avalanches obstructions that can be there can affect the way the avalanche happens. Unobstructed avalanches will perform differently to obstructed avalanches. If it happens to be raining or it rained the weeks before and the ground is damp and loose and then it will affect it differently again. So there are many random variables that will affect an avalanche.

No, it is by any "measurement", whether that means something else in the universe counts on a certain thing to be either one way or another, or it is a mechanical device which records an outcome, or a human with his eye up against the glass; but the latter two don't matter because it is all base don the first.

Well all I know is scientists are saying that the quantum world acts differently to our reality. It has been verified and what they have measured is correct. But how it fits in with our reality is something they havnt been able to work out yet. This is the big problem with uniting Einsteins relativity and quantum physics. There is no unified theory yet and it is causing problems with calculating the overall measurements of affects we see in our reality. It could be we have got things wrong and have to rethink how we measure everything and what role it plays in the scheme of things like gravity for example.

I hope you understand that the measurement doesn't mean "a person sees it", because nothing in the article nor the original source supports your claim.

OK well as far as I understood it it was only when someone tried to measure things that it changed the results. This may be through an instrument but it is still the same. What was predicted to happen and should have happened was changed when they measured things. This showed that particles could act like a wave or a particle.

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said they were the same. I said they require a specific genetic code that needs to be written in the correct language to be a viable and fit living thing.

You just did it again. A specific genetic code means 100% the same. If it can change, THEN IT ISN'T SPECIFIC.

Remember the point was about whether our genetic makeups have signs of design rather than a random chance thing. Random chance would show erratic and hit and miss things. It would mean that for every correct genetic state we have there would have been many more incorrect states that we had to go through to end up with something that is precise. The evidence doesn't point to this but rather that we have had specific and complex genetic info from a very early stage (ie the Cambrian explosion) if not from the beginning of time.

What evidence doesn't point to that?

Thats right but each of those will produce the different features and function a living thing has. The entire body plan of a living thing isn't reliant on one protein. It has thousands. But each and every one of those proteins needs to be precise in its 3D folding to produce functional features and body shapes.

You are painting the bulls eye around the bullet hole. There is no reason that any species has to have the proteins it does have. If we started the process over, we would expect a different result.

Of course evolution states that specific protein folds happened through random mutations throwing up different possibilities and the right ones being selected to produce the best functional proteins. But when you consider the entire process of making functional proteins its impossible to think that chance mutations could do this.

Argument from incredulity.

Yes but because you cant change it by all the other % in a 100% scale shows that even the yeast has a specific % of cytochrome c in that scale.

Where did you show that the other % could not change? I could find another protein that shares less than 10% and it will still have function.

It just means that its hard enough to get one living creature to get the right amount of something. But to get two or more to get the exact amount of something out of random chance mutations is unlikely. This points more to some intelligence directing creatures to have a specific level of proteins and genetic info rather than trying to fnd all this through a hit and miss process. Especially considering that cytochrome c is only a microscopic amount of what is totally needed to make living things.

Amount of what? Do you not understand what an amino acid sequence is?

The papers posted plus other evidence that creatures gain their genetic material from other processes besides adaptive ones like evolution. These other non adaptive process like HGT, epigenetics, developmental biology, cross breeding, interbreeding and endosymbiosis. The tests had experimented with random insertions just like evolution and mutations would do and the results showed that this could not produce any viable and functional proteins overall.

How did they test these proteins against billions of substrates?

 

[Loudmouth]

Can the origin of information or the system of communication which passes the gene be explained through chemistry and physics?

if so please give me a brief summary

Randomly assembled RNA molecules have RNA ligase activity:

"In vitro selection, or directed molecular evolution, allows the isolation and amplification of rare sequences that satisfy a functional-selection criterion. This technique can be used to isolate novel ribozymes (RNA enzymes) from large pools of random sequences. We used in vitro evolution to select a ribozyme that catalyzes a novel template-directed RNA ligation that requires surprisingly few nucleotides for catalytic activity. With the exception of two nucleotides, most of the ribozyme contributes to a template, suggesting that it is a general prebiotic ligase. More surprisingly, the catalytic core built from randomized sequences actually contains a 7-nt manganese-dependent self-cleavage motif originally discovered in the Tetrahymena group I intron."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/1/173.full.pdf

Random sequences can have the type of activity that you claim requires "information and a system of communication".

 

[Foxhole87]

I am more and more compelled to take Steve less seriously when I explain that complex doesn't mean random and he "concedes" by granting a "fair enough", and then proceeds to continue identifying complex things as "random".

 

[Zlatanara]

Randomly assembled RNA molecules have RNA ligase activity:

"In vitro selection, or directed molecular evolution, allows the isolation and amplification of rare sequences that satisfy a functional-selection criterion. This technique can be used to isolate novel ribozymes (RNA enzymes) from large pools of random sequences. We used in vitro evolution to select a ribozyme that catalyzes a novel template-directed RNA ligation that requires surprisingly few nucleotides for catalytic activity. With the exception of two nucleotides, most of the ribozyme contributes to a template, suggesting that it is a general prebiotic ligase. More surprisingly, the catalytic core built from randomized sequences actually contains a 7-nt manganese-dependent self-cleavage motif originally discovered in the Tetrahymena group I intron."
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/1/173.full.pdf

Random sequences can have the type of activity that you claim requires "information and a system of communication".

interesting, so this is if someone accepts the RNA first hypothesis also known as RNA world.

my surprising question always has been how can something be chemically explained when it has no chemical bonds. There are molecules in both transfer RNA and DNA which have no interaction between amino acid and nucleotide codon. Im not sure of the article explains TNA or phosphoramidate DNA and also what determines an accurate prebiotic soup?

There are no significant differential affinities between any of the four bases and the binding sites along the sugar-phosphate backbone, instead the same type of chemical bond (an N-glycosidic bond) occurs between the base and the backbone regardless of which base attaches.

RNA has been formed in a laboratory but with a ''skilled'' chemist behind it, one would think who played the role of a skilled chemist in the prebiotic soup,

Also Frank Salisbury put it nicely

''It's nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes.The link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enzymes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. ... How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It's as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don't see them at the moment.
(Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, 33: 335-338 (September, 1971)

The odds of suddenly having a self-replicating RNA pop out of a prebiotic soup are vanishingly low," says evolutionary biochemist Niles Lehman of Portland State University in Oregon.

long-standing weakness of the RNA-world hypothesis has been the inability to spontaneously generate the molecule's component nucleotides from the basic ingredients presumed to be available on the prebiotic Earth. Still today, "nobody has made all four of the nucleotides from one pot of simple starting materials," says Georgia Tech biochemist Nicholas Hud.
In particular, ribose, the five-carbon sugar that constitutes RNA's backbone, is difficult to form under prebiotic conditions, and purine and pyrimidine nucleobases, the variable parts of nucleotides, do not efficiently form covalent bonds with ribose.

Some scientists are confident that someday they may eventually produce RNA (or at least, its constituents) under prebiotic conditions, but that still would not overcome the information-sequencing problem: How would the nucleotides be properly ordered to create a self-replicating RNA? That's probably the biggest problem facing origin-of-life research.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/no_blind_watchm082781.html

If we were not talking about a prebiotic condition, then indeed something like Joyce experiment could be considered here, Joyce's lab engineered a system where "two different small RNA molecules made copies of the other" and "with a bit more directed evolution, Joyce's PhD student Tracey Lincoln was able to improve the system's kinetic properties such that it began replicating exponentially." Then, there's this key admission:

Of course, these artificial systems are unlikely to resemble the first RNAs to appear on the young planet, Joyce notes. "There was no Tracey [directing evolution] on the primitive Earth. This is not that kind of game." (emphasis added)

directed evolution can accomplish impressive feats in the lab. However, there is no reason to think that the enormous probabilistic resources available in such experiments were at the disposal of the early Earth

http://www.arn.org/docs/booher/scientific-case-for-ID.html << Scroll down to the topic Why do combination (chance and necessity) theories fail in explaining the origin of life

 

[Davian]

...
i like to keep an open mind on both doors there is no harm of believing in God for me so i am yet to find a real reason to give up on him.

What does your god do for you, beyond filling gaps in scientific knowledge?

 

[stevevw]

I am more and more compelled to take Steve less seriously when I explain that complex doesn't mean random and he "concedes" by granting a "fair enough", and then proceeds to continue identifying complex things as "random".

Didn't you see the qualification. I Qualified situations where complex is associated with design being that it also has other qualities as well ie ordered codes, language, patterns, systems within systems, algorithms that have high levels of info and that complex is just one aspect. In evolution a complex organism or creature that appears to early in the evolutionary process is difficult to explain as being self creating considering evolution is based on a slow and gradual process.

If you were to dig up a complex bit of machinery in an ancient layer you would immediately think to things. 1) it must have got their by mistake because humans were not capable of making that level of complexity back then. 2) It is designed. But here is a question for you.Can you give some examples of complexity in nature that are not associated with design qualities and were made through self creating natural processes.

 

[Zlatanara]

What does your god do for you, beyond filling gaps in scientific knowledge?

This question is irrelevant to the discussion

anyhow, if you want to know what God is for me? look at my profile picture that's what God is for me

Also just to ad a list of things i achieved after believing in God (indeed people can achieve all these without God, but also can achieve with God )

*Faith helped me quit drugs
*Faith helped me find happiness even when every materialistic goals went down
*Faith made life more interesting and special

So the question you asked about ''what God does for me'' is very personal, this is why i want to keep this discussion to science, when i asked you about RNA and DNA which have no interaction between amino acid and nucleotide codon, this is not against science it is a serious question that i am looking answers for.

Have i come here and preached that God is the only answer to everything? No, God is the answer to many things but so is Science.

If i was sick i should see a doctor and take the right medicine (instead of crying to God at home), but in addition i can pray to God to keep my spirit uplifted in the struggle. Perfect cure for disease is not just the chemical medicine, but a combination of a strong mind and good medicine. God plays the role in my strong mind, science plays the role in my good medicines.

Sorry if my explanation was confusing i respect your way of life hope you do the same to me

 

[Zlatanara]

Didn't you see the qualification. I Qualified situations where complex is associated with design being that it also has other qualities as well ie ordered codes, language, patterns, systems within systems, algorithms that have high levels of info and that complex is just one aspect. In evolution a complex organism or creature that appears to early in the evolutionary process is difficult to explain as being self creating considering evolution is based on a slow and gradual process.

If you were to dig up a complex bit of machinery in an ancient layer you would immediately think to things. 1) it must have got their by mistake because humans were not capable of making that level of complexity back then. 2) It is designed. But here is a question for you.Can you give some examples of complexity in nature that are not associated with design qualities and were made through self creating natural processes.

Stevevw i enjoy reading your posts, thanks for sharing your knowledge

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Can you give some examples of complexity in nature that are not associated with design qualities and were made through self creating natural processes.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Attn @stevevw. Lawrence Krauss discusses Ben Carson's scientific ignorance in the The New Yorker:

It is hard to find a single detailed claim in his diatribe that is physically sensible or that reflects accurate knowledge about science. His central claim—that the second law of thermodynamics rules out order forming in the universe after the Big Bang—is a frequent misstatement made by creationists who want to appear scientifically literate. In reality, it is completely false. Local order in parts of the universe is always possible at the expense of heat and disorder dissipated to the external environment. The human body is one example: we take in energy from our environment to build up complex molecules that help power our bodies, and, in doing so, we release heat to the world around us. A snowflake is another beautifully ordered example of what simple natural meteorological processes can produce. Stars form by gravity, collapsing into spherically ordered structures that can remain in this form only if they release tremendous heat energy into the environment. Carson elides these physical realities by creating a straw man: he says that scientists believe that, after the Big Bang, the universe was “perfectly ordered.” But no such claim has been made by scientists; instead, we describe how local order, including galaxies, stars, planets, and life, developed over time.

When Carson says that scientists rely on “probability theory” to explain how multiple Big Bangs, taking place over “billions of years,” have resulted in our “perfectly ordered” universe, he’s profoundly misstating the theory of the Big Bang. (In fact, he seems to have gotten his ignorant arguments confused—his metaphor about a hurricane creating a 747 in a junkyard is often used to deride evolution, to which it is equally inapplicable.) No one suggests that other Big Bangs have happened or are happening in our universe. Instead, all evidence implies that our universe originated from a single Big Bang approximately 13.7 billion years ago. Perhaps Carson was referring to the possibility of other universes outside of our universe, and to the so-called anthropic principle, which suggests that, if there are many universes, the fact that our universe supports life could be a probabilistic phenomenon. But those ideas, whether they’re true or not, have nothing to do with the reality of the Big Bang. We conclude the Big Bang happened because every piece of observational evidence we have about the universe is precisely consistent with predictions based on this possibility and none other. Speculations about other possible universes are irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

Stevevw i enjoy reading your posts, thanks for sharing your knowledge

I am not that knowledgeable but thanks for the feedback. But anything I say is from what I spend a lot of time reading and researching.

 

[Zlatanara]

I am not that knowledgeable but thanks for the feedback. But anything I say is from what I spend a lot of time reading and researching.

Indeed, Democratic party will never be strong without an opposition like Republicans and vice versa. Its always good to see the weaknesses and strengths in both sides of the coin so the end result becomes unbiased and comforting.

North Korean rules don't apply to science, every side should be questioned and i find many things that cannot be explained purely through chemical. What explains the chemical compound of a silver spoon and fork will not explain their arrangements in a dining table

keep up the good work.

 

[stevevw]

Already dealt with this. In fact I done some more research and it seems that snowflakes also come under what is known as chaos theory and fractals.

Snowflakes, tornado's, stalactites, stalagmites the behavior of those things are governed we now know as something that is called Chaos theory. Chaos theory is the study of how order forms naturally without design.

A pattern could be a tornado or hurricane, but a tornado or hurricane is not design. Nature does have self-organizing properties. Not all patterns are designed, but all designs have patterns.
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/