Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biologist; we can't blame him for getting that wrong."Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability of producing the proteins necessary to service a simple one celled organism by chance at 1 in 10 to the 40000. " Meyer - Signature in the Cell - 2009(Paperback) p.213
If you have a better explanation - i.e. one that also aids our understanding, makes testable predictions, is as parsimonious, and doesn't raise more questions that it answers, I'd like to hear it. 'Goddidit' fails those criteria.
Yeah - he makes the same old straw man that stepwise evolution is unlikely to result in a specified result - forgetting that the mousetrap is an analogy (his own analogy), and the argument was not that a mousetrap could actually evolve, but that it was not irreducibly complex. The example showed that stepwise modification could produce a functional mousetrap at every step, falsifying the claim of irreducible complexity.
The article you linked describing how even small flagellins can still form flagellar filaments despite large central deletions is clear evidence that even small flagellins are not irreducibly complex. Not sure what your point was...i also speak about a single protein and not about a multi-protein system.
If abiogenesis is true, I would say that the chemical evolution that eventually resulted in life very much is a scientific question. And one that we do have the tools to explore empirically.
Firstly, that is not relevant to my post that you quoted, and secondly, that claim was debunked even before Behe's claim that it was irreducibly complex.the design is the only explanation for the existence of a spinning motor (even if its made from organic components and has a self replicating system)...
The article you linked describing how even small flagellins can still form flagellar filaments despite large central deletions is clear evidence that even small flagellins are not irreducibly complex. Not sure what your point was...
I'd say it's sciency-sounding nonsense that's not going to impress anyone who knows their basic physics.I am intrigued how you would react to my
suggestion that Dr. Chaim Henry Tejman deserves the Origin of Life prize:
I have nominated Dr. Chaim Tejman for the one million dollar origin of life prize.
The Fundamental Force
Grand Unified Theory: Wave Theory and Life
No, it doesn't mean that at all. The fact that Kuwajima found that the active terminal (N & C) regions of the flagellins were highly homologous, and the central region was heterologous and fairly resilient to deletions, strongly suggests that the N and C subunits had independent roles elsewhere before being linked via the heterologous central 'bridge'.actually the paper shows that we need about 310 amino acids (out of 497) for the protein minimal function. that means that there is no stepwise way to evolve it.
False. Even if we hadn't discovered natural molecular motors, and even if we didn't have plausible explanations for how they could arise, it would still be false. It's false logic.... we know that a natural process cant produce a motor...
its basically a motor (with a self replicating system of course). since we know that a natural process cant produce a motor- the best explanation is a design rather then a natural process. we also know that such a system need at least several parts to its minimal function. so it cant evolve stepwise by evolution. we will never get such a motor from a simple self replicating matter.
Since chemistry cannot explain how the information present in the DNA of even the simplest cell arose whether by necessity or chance the real question here is why a naturalistic methodology is being employed at all.
If your answers must be phrased according to the logic of a methodology that affords no explanatory power then maybe you have to seek a less reductionist explanation for how life arose. God did it being the simplest conclusion.
Arguing for irreducible complexity almost always leaves you in God of the Gaps territory. Which makes it an argument from ignorance.
We don't know that natural processes can't produce a motor; at most, we simply haven't figured out how it came about yet.
They may know their BASIC PHYSICS.....I'd say it's sciency-sounding nonsense that's not going to impress anyone who knows their basic physics.
Near death experiencer Dannion Brinkley saw a fulfillment of
the Mark of the Beast during his brush with death that fits well with both
Multiverse Theory...... as well as with the Book of Revelation.
He was shown a time line for this though that fits with Multiverse Theory.....
because it seems that in our time line many of the disasters have been delayed and delayed and delayed.......
which fits with the desire that G-d has that all men be saved........
and the promise that Messiah Yeshua will draw all men to Himself.
John 12:32
And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.
Dannion Brinkley: "BOX 12: Technology & Virus
The 11th box was gone & I was into the 12th box. Its visions addressed an important event in the distant future, the decade of the 90's (remember, this was 1975), when many of the great changes would take place. In this box, I watched as a biological engineer from the Middle East found a way to alter DNA & create a biological virus that would be used in the manufacture of computer chips. This discovery allowed for huge strides in science & technology. Japan, China, & other countries of the Pacific Rim experienced boom times as a result of this discovery & became powers of incredible magnitude. Computer chips produced from this process found their way into virtually every form of technology, from cars & airplanes to vacuum cleaners & blenders.
Before the turn of the century, this man was among the richest in the world, so rich that he had a stranglehold on the world economy. Still the world welcomed him, since the computer chips he had designed somehow put the world on an even keel. Gradually, he succumbed to his own power. He began to think of himself as a deity & insisted on greater control of the world. With that extra control, he began to rule the world.
His method of rule was unique. Everyone in the world was mandated by law to have one of his computer chips inserted underneath his or her skin. This chip contained all of an individual's personal information. If a government agency wanted to know something, all it had to do was scan your chip with a special device. By doing so, it could discover everything about you, from where you worked & lived to your medical records & even what kind of illnesses you might get in the future.
There was an even more sinister side to this chip. A person's lifetime could be limited by programming this chip to dissolve & kill him with the viral substance it was made from. Lifetimes were controlled like this to avoid the cost that growing old places on the government. It was also used as a means of eliminating people with chronic illnesses that put a drain on the medical system. People who refused to have chips implanted in their bodies roamed as outcasts. They could not be employed & were denied government services." (Dannion Brinkley, Saved By The Light, chapter 5)
It is called inference to the best explanation, not ignorance.Arguing for irreducible complexity almost always leaves you in God of the Gaps territory.
Cannot, now you do know.We don't know that natural processes can't produce a motor;
Intelligenceat most, we simply haven't figured out how it came about yet.
The point of the experiment (as is touted in the literature) was to show that the amino acids that are the building blocks of life could have arisen through purely natural conditions without the intervention of an Intelligence.Actually, it's nothing like that. Nothing like that at all. You do yourself and your argument a disservice by such a silly analogy. That, or you've completely mis-understood the point of the experiment.
Miller-Urey and similar experiments use of "intelligent design" was to attempt to simulate early earth atmospheres and conditions. They were investigating if the conditions of earth's early atmosphere were favourable to the creation of amino-acids, which are the basis for the underlying organic chemistry of life.
The intelligence in this case was applied to replicate natural conditions and see if amino acids could form in such conditions. That is, that organic compounds could be formed spontaneously, without active intervention.
I agree, there is nothing deceptive in the experiment. It is in how the results are interpreted that the deception occurs.There is nothing deceptive about the Miller-Urey experiment. They didn't get early atmosphere's correct, and the evidence is now is that life more probably began in water rather than in the atmosphere, but there's nothing deceptive - their original experiments, and umpteen repeats and variations of it, are available instantly with a basic Google search. They did what they set out to do - to investigate whether the complex organic compounds could be naturally produced from simpler inorganic precursors.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Stephen MeyerThis isn't what the Intelligent Design movement postulates when it comes to life's origins.
You're really stretching the concept of ID here.
Condition that would be best explained by an intelligent cause as evidenced by the fact that the conditions present in the experiment had to be set up by the people conducting the experiment and the fact that the conditions that they set up were not representative of naturally occurring conditions found on early Earth, at least at the point where life is known to have originated.Again, the only "creative intelligence" involved was setting up the conditions of the experiment to recreate what was considered at the time to be representative of early Earth.
Intelligent Design postulates the involvement of a designing intelligence. It is those who oppose the movement or those who wish to use it to bolster their own argument by the use of the concept (such as Biblical Creationists) who give other definitions beyond this inference to the best explanation.If you're going to redefine "intelligent design" to mean "scientific experiment", then you've completed neutered the definition as typically used by ID proponents.
he theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Condition that would be best explained by an intelligent cause as evidenced by the fact that the conditions present in the experiment had to be set up by the people conducting the experiment and the fact that the conditions that they set up were not representative of naturally occurring conditions found on early Earth, at least at the point where life is known to have originated.
What "information"?
"God did it" is nowhere near the 'simplest' conclusion. It's by far the most complicated conclusion, since you:
a) have to account for the existence of God; and,
b) have to account for the mechanisms by which God would have created life.
The concept of information is fairly significant in biology. Take a look: Biological Information (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
This is the problem with reductionism. People are so intent to avoid anything that could lead back to theism that they insist upon explanations that are completely nonsensical.
im not sure. the irreducible complexity is base on claim that we can test. for instance: if you want to make a minimal cell-phone, can you do that stepwise when every step is functional by itself? if not, what make you think its possible with biological systems?
ok. but will you agree that the best explanation for the existance of a spinning motor is design rather then a natural process?
It is called inference to the best explanation, not ignorance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?