Natural selection v Intelligent design

[Zlatanara]

Six base pairs, actually. And they're not" letters of code," they're amino acids.

it doesn't matter if they are amino acids, like i said before the chemical compound of a spoon or fork does not explain their arrangement in a dining table

 

[HitchSlap]

Sure it does. It's molecular biology.

it doesn't matter if they are amino acids, like i said before the chemical compound of a spoon or fork does not explain their arrangement in a dining table

 

[Zlatanara]

That only tells me what you think your god isn't.

I am not here to explain anything, particularly your "out of thin air" straw-man. I just see your analogy as faulty, and that adding an undefined, unfalsifiable "god" to the equation does nothing to help.

Well it works for me

how can you speak for me? what works for me might not work for you

unless you can prove the origin of life to happen without a cause, you and me have nothing much to benefit from a theological conversation. Only after you accept a cause can i introduce you to my way of contacting the cause.

We are going to waste time on talking about the path to the God, if you dont believe in God our conversation will end only in ''the path'' but not what the path leads me to.

 

[Zlatanara]

Sure it does. It's molecular biology.

then explain how it arranged in the first living cell through chemical evolution?

 

[HitchSlap]

then explain how it arranged in the first living cell through chemical evolution?

I have no idea.

 

[Zlatanara]

I have no idea.

well if the chemical soup cannot explain the arrangements of the first life, then indeed the analogy of the chemical compound of a spoon cannot explain its arrangements in a table. Just as the Ink in a news paper cannot explain the meaning of the Headline.

 

[HitchSlap]

well if the chemical soup cannot explain the arrangements of the first life, then indeed the analogy of the chemical compound of a spoon cannot explain its arrangements in a table. Just as the Ink in a news paper cannot explain the meaning of the Headline.

Sorry, I don't follow. What does this have to do with us not having found the first self-replicating proteins.

 

[Zlatanara]

Sorry, I don't follow. What does this have to do with us not having found the first self-replicating proteins.

First self replicating protein out of a prebiotic soup and each protein need 100s of specific amino acids, due to prebiotic condition there should be only a chemical explanation without natural selection. This would be like meaninful Articles self originating out of a river of INK

 

[HitchSlap]

First self replicating protein out of a prebiotic soup and each protein need 100s of specific amino acids, due to prebiotic condition there should be only a chemical explanation without natural selection. This would be like meaninful Articles self originating out of a river of INK

You've done some research in this field, then?

 

[Zlatanara]

You've done some research in this field, then?

what do you mean by then?

 

[Davian]

Well it works for me

how can you speak for me? what works for me might not work for you

I don't claim to speak for you. It just seems that you are remarkable evasive about this "god" that you think fills the gaps in scientific knowledge.

unless you can prove the origin of life to happen without a cause,

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.

you and me have nothing much to benefit from a theological conversation.

Particularly if you are unclear on your theology.

Only after you accept a cause can i introduce you to my way of contacting the cause.

This mysterious gap-filler can be contacted? By telephone or internet?

We are going to waste time on talking about the path to the God, if you dont believe in God our conversation will end only in ''the path'' but not what the path leads me to.

I still do not know what you mean by "god".

 

[HitchSlap]

what do you mean by then?

You made a claim regarding regarding self replicating proteins, indicating that the probabilities are highly unlikely. So I'm asking if you've done any research in this area? Scientists often speak in terms of what is possible based on evidence, not in terms of what isn't possible.

 

[Zlatanara]

I don't claim to speak for you. It just seems that you are remarkable evasive about this "god" that you think fills the gaps in scientific knowledge.

Asking someone to prove a negative is something I consider to be intellectually bankrupt.

Particularly if you are unclear on your theology.

This mysterious gap-filler can be contacted? By telephone or internet?

I still do not know what you mean by "god".

why should i explain to you about something that you do not believe?

Science is something we both can accept because its based on facts, but God is something we both cannot agree because its based on faith.

Anyhow everything that is science does not become a fact, such is the case with chemical evolution.

Its a misunderstanding you have got to claim the God i believe to be a gap-filler for me, Science fills the gap of how God did it for me, so God does not fill science for me

If science proved this is how a DNA works, for me it means this is how God works. Through science i know that gravity, O2, distance from Sun and many other factors are the reason why we are alive so this filled the gap of how God governs earth. Through science i knew the patterns of life and its evolution from time which made me understand how God progressed with his creatures with time.

For me Science fills the Gaps not the other way around.

You might wonder why am i questioning chemical evolution so hard then? well that's one gap science has failed to fill for me so i like to seek the answer for that

 

[Zlatanara]

You made a claim regarding regarding self replicating proteins, indicating that the probabilities are highly unlikely. So I'm asking if you've done any research in this area? Scientists often speak in terms of what is possible based on evidence, not in terms of what isn't possible.

If chemical does not have a possible answer, it opens the door to find new approaches. If you dont like the word Intelligence then may be natural selection before the first life? Sometimes if we stick to the same approach that has failed to give an answer its better to open doors to others.

 

[HitchSlap]

If chemical does not have a possible answer, it opens the door to find new approaches. If you dont like the word Intelligence then may be natural selection before the first life? Sometimes if we stick to the same approach that has failed to give an answer its better to open doors to others.

Then you have totally failed to understand the scientific method, as everything we have learned about the natural world is a result of the scientific method and inquiry. You are engaging in classic argument from ignorance and credulity, with a heap of god-of-gaps on the side. IMO, this is a terrible way to learn about reality, and allows one to fill in the blanks with religious dogma.

Everything we have ever learned is a result of the scientific method; not faith, revelation, or prayer.

 

[Davian]

why should i explain to you about something that you do not believe?

Science is something we both can accept because its based on facts, but God is something we both cannot agree because its based on faith.

Anyhow everything that is science does not become a fact, such is the case with chemical evolution.

Its a misunderstanding you have got to claim the God i believe to be a gap-filler for me, Science fills the gap of how God did it for me, so God does not fill science for me

If science proved this is how a DNA works, for me it means this is how God works. Through science i know that gravity, O2, distance from Sun and many other factors are the reason why we are alive so this filled the gap of how God governs earth. Through science i knew the patterns of life and its evolution from time which made me understand how God progressed with his creatures with time.

For me Science fills the Gaps not the other way around.

You might wonder why am i questioning chemical evolution so hard then? well that's one gap science has failed to fill for me so i like to seek the answer for that

Why, if you already have your answer?

 

[Zlatanara]

Then you have totally failed to understand the scientific method, as everything we have learned about the natural world is a result of the scientific method and inquiry. You are engaging in classic argument from ignorance and credulity, with a heap of god-of-gaps on the side. IMO, this is a terrible way to learn about reality, and allows one to fill in the blanks with religious dogma.

Everything we have ever learned is a result of the scientific method; not faith, revelation, or prayer.

well then explain chemical evolution in scientific method

 

[Zlatanara]

Why, if you already have your answer?

love to learn more, increases my faith by learning the complexity and patterns....i have my own reasons

 

[Zlatanara]

Then you have totally failed to understand the scientific method, as everything we have learned about the natural world is a result of the scientific method and inquiry. You are engaging in classic argument from ignorance and credulity, with a heap of god-of-gaps on the side. IMO, this is a terrible way to learn about reality, and allows one to fill in the blanks with religious dogma.

Everything we have ever learned is a result of the scientific method; not faith, revelation, or prayer.

Well i believe in a creator or a cause, and i find nothing Science can do to disprove it, Science and its failure to understand how life originated out of a prebiotic soup has even led people into an extreme of making controlled lab studies to concluded RNA first models. Why are you bothered on filling my Gaps if you got nothing to offer?

God is not a gap for me to fill, Science and God are compliments for me, Science fills the Gap of God not the other way around. If i looked at a boring green scenery it would look nice, but with science i know how each green grass is complex in its structure. Science makes me find an artist not only on the outside but also in the micro world.

My problem is not with science but with people that are so confident that there is no cause, especially when you dont even know the answer to origin of life in prebiotic conditions its amazing how people question God.

Tell me, why are you not Agnostic? or are you?

 

[Loudmouth]

Life is a great product that successfully reproduces, evolves and adapts in to changing conditions. Sequence hypothesis as Bill Gates said is similar to Binary codes.

That doesn't even make sense.

Why couldn't the designer create a species with a mixture of bird and mammal features?

Why couldn't the designer create a species with some genes that are identical to a yeast species, other genes that are identical to a bird species, and other genes that are identical to a fish species?

If you are going to compare DNA to software, then you a much more serious problem. You can no longer explain why DNA phylogenies are the same as morphological phylogenies. That is, you can't explain why physical similarities directly correlate to DNA similarities. This certainly isn't true for software.

"As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don't care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_convergence

Only evolution explains why there is a correlation between physical similarities and DNA similarities. Common design fails to explain it.