The Genetic Code

[Bungle_Bear]

There is no of evidence of the existence of immediate simpler antecedents to that simplest cell, or any structure proposed for them. With all their intelligence chemical plant designers do not expect far simpler chemical plants to work first time. Indeed with all our wit there is no such chemical plant on earth that is similar complexity, if there was it would take decades to build...before being able to refine the next experiment.. In many ways the science of "proto cells" has barely advanced since I first saw it as a schoolkid in new scientist 50 years ago. Same old arguments. Same lack of evidence. Despite a fortune pumped by NASA harvard, and various benefactors all there is is conjecture.

Talking of poor analogies, here's another - millions of years of billions of simultaneous experiments across a whole planet is comparable to a handful of scientists running a few thousand experiments in less than 100 years. How is it conceivable that they haven't created life yet?

Your guesses on origin of life are just as much a faith, as anyone else. The entire field of abiogenesis is assumptions repeated so often they have gained the status of fact with not a shred of evidence any of it ever happened. It just has to have happened right? Or the atheist thing falls apart without it!

And an argument from incredulity to wrap things up.

I'm convinced!

 

[Mountainmike]

You ignore all the problems take casualties.

If 0123456789( etc to 1000 digits) is the only random chance sequence of bits that works, you expect a huge number of some of the others like 1345678902 to be found as casualties in random chance assembly, on the way to just one random living cell..

Indeed considering the staggering complexity of the simplest known cell the world would be awash with the still born casualties. There are none. No intermediate antecedents . No nearly right but actually wrong casualties. No evidence of any kind.

Enough time and places does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity.

indeed the scientists have the advantage they can ignore most of the non Chance combinations , so they need orders of magnitude less time. They still get nowhere.

Cars are a lot simpler. Bicycles simpler still. Why are there not a heap of nearLy cars from random chance assembly of bits without designer. Ones with the gearstick where the steering wheel should be? There are none in the fossil record. Why not? If time and places is all it takes? They are a much simpler accident.


There is no evidence of any antecedents or casualties along the way to the simplest cell.

It is hideously complex.

As a math modeller this ridiculous wishful thinking on progressive change is what’s wrong with much of what is written on climbing mount improbable. Dawkins knows nothing about it. Life would get stuck on the first small foothill. It could never leave without jumps, so still born casualties. A junk yard of failures. And if it really happened that way, there would be a production line still continuing all the way from soup to complex living cells. There isn’t. Just a hideously complex minimum cell.

Talking of poor analogies, here's another - millions of years of billions of simultaneous experiments across a whole planet is comparable to a handful of scientists running a few thousand experiments in less than 100 years. How is it conceivable that they haven't created life yet?

 

[ottawak]

You ignore all the problems take casualties.

If 0123456789( etc to 1000 digits) is the only random chance sequence of bits that works, you expect a huge number of some of the others like 1345678902 to be found as casualties in random chance assembly, on the way to just one random living cell..

Lot to unpack there. In the first place, no one supposes that life came about when the necessary inorganic chemicals just happened randomly to bump into one another. The odds against that happening are pretty much as you suppose. There would have to be a population of "almost" cells before it could happen, and then the odds are pretty good.

Indeed considering the staggering complexity of the simplest known cell the world would be awash with the still born casualties. There are none. No intermediate antecedents . No nearly right but actually wrong casualties. No evidence of any kind.

And none is to be expected. For all we know, the emergence of life could be a pretty common occurrance happening even now, but the simple proto-life produced would almost instantly become food for some existing creature and we wouldn't know about it.

Enough time and places does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity.

Now all you have to do is show that such a thing exists in natural objects. You have to present us with a complex natural biological system, and demonstrate that it could not have been produced by a stochastic process.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You ignore all the problems take casualties.

If 0123456789( etc to 1000 digits) is the only random chance sequence of bits that works, you expect a huge number of some of the others like 1345678902 to be found as casualties in random chance assembly, on the way to just one random living cell..

Indeed considering the staggering complexity of the simplest known cell the world would be awash with the still born casualties. There are none. No intermediate antecedents . No nearly right but actually wrong casualties. No evidence of any kind.

Enough time and places does not solve the problem of irreducible complexity.

indeed the scientists have the advantage they can ignore most of the non Chance combinations , so they need orders of magnitude less time. They still get nowhere.

Cars are a lot simpler. Bicycles simpler still. Why are there not a heap of nearLy cars from random chance assembly of bits without designer. Ones with the gearstick where the steering wheel should be? There are none in the fossil record. Why not? If time and places is all it takes? They are a much simpler accident.


There is no evidence of any antecedents or casualties along the way to the simplest cell.

It is hideously complex.

As a math modeller this ridiculous wishful thinking on progressive change is what’s wrong with much of what is written on climbing mount improbable. Dawkins knows nothing about it. Life would get stuck on the first small foothill. It could never leave without jumps, so still born casualties. A junk yard of failures. And if it really happened that way, there would be a production line still continuing all the way from soup to complex living cells. There isn’t. Just a hideously complex minimum cell.

Just another argument from incredulity. If you want to argue probabilities you'll need to provide your maths. Without that you're simply making an unsupported assertion which can be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Astrid]

Just another argument from incredulity. If you want to argue probabilities you'll need to provide your maths. Without that you're simply making an unsupported assertion which can be dismissed out of hand.

Hows a creationist to argue without
making things up?

 

[AV1611VET]

Hows a creationist to argue without making things up?

Would you know it, if we didn't?

For instance, can you compare what we "make up" to what the Bible says? or doesn't say?

 

[Hans Blaster]

The simplest cell we know is a self repplicating, self repairing, self evolving programmable chemical factory that produces thousands of proteins under instruction of genetic codes. It is horrendously complex. The function of much of the genetic code is still unknown, how some parts of organsims function is still completely unkonw.

The simplest cell we can examine is the product of 3+ billion years of evolution, or are you going to deny that too?

 

[Kylie]

Is that what passes as logic in your world? As bad examples go, it is a very bad example.

Yes, I know it was bad logic. That was the point. I was trying to point out that the argument "The genetic code is ordered, therefore it must have been designed" was equally bad.

How about mine. The simplest cell we know is a self repplicating, self repairing, self evolving programmable chemical factory that produces thousands of proteins under instruction of genetic codes. It is horrendously complex. The function of much of the genetic code is still unknown, how some parts of organsims function is still completely unkonw.

There is no of evidence of the existence of immediate simpler antecedents to that simplest cell, or any structure proposed for them. With all their intelligence chemical plant designers do not expect far simpler chemical plants to work first time. Indeed with all our wit there is no such chemical plant on earth that is similar complexity, if there was it would take decades to build...before being able to refine the next experiment.. In many ways the science of "proto cells" has barely advanced since I first saw it as a schoolkid in new scientist 50 years ago. Same old arguments. Same lack of evidence. Despite a fortune pumped by NASA harvard, and various benefactors all there is is conjecture.

There is also the problem. Irreducible complexity. A hydrogen atom is not self repairing, self evolving or self replication. Because it isnt complex enough. At very least the minimum needs the structures for replcation , it needs a genetic code to evolve, and the processes to interpret the code. Remove parts of that structure and it the irreducible cell is dead in the water. Obviously. Because It neither replicates or evolves. Without which there is no life. How did that happen? With no designer?

As for random chance origin of it all - there is no heap of debris of nearly working (but actually failing) chemical factory cells, or a long line of simpler almost cells for for there to be a random chance that one of them works by pure accident. Since there is no guiding hand in your world there must be a near infinite number of failures for just one to be lucky enough to work. And that process should be continuing. But There is nothing. No designer to build it or turn it on. Just a few plausibility arguments for how some bits of it might possibly happen. ( with a following wind and lots of optimism, and even if those bits are shown that they might have happened, there is still no evidence they actually did happen or happen that way!)

So the reality is you know nothing. All you have is conjecture and the ability to marvel at the hideous complexity of nature, with no idea where any of it came from.

Certainly not by shaking rocks in a box, with or without your magical gremlins (whose existence i am inclined to doubt).

Your guesses on origin of life are just as much a faith, as anyone else. The entire field of abiogenesis is assumptions repeated so often they have gained the status of fact with not a shred of evidence any of it ever happened. It just has to have happened right? Or the atheist thing falls apart without it!

Plausible ideas for the forerunners of cells have been presented since at least the 1920s. And it's entirely plausible that enzyme could have formed self-replicating molecules.

 

[Mountainmike]

My point is it is all staggeringly unlikely.

So the atheist mantra oft repeated that somehow they take a “logical view” of what is near inevitable in their eyes , given enough time and places to happen , is logical hogwash. Atheist belief in random chance abiogenesis with no designer is just that: an unsupported belief bordering on the magical that Dawkins so attacks.

Given the amount of research into such as volcanic vents, if there were something bordering on protocell it would have been found, as would the stream of still born one winged birds or crustaceans rhat can’t make it out of the shell, due to a design flaw in absence of any designer to make sure it does. Even now the minimum cell is staggeringly complex.

Don’t get me wrong: I might even be persuaded it happened.

But most of the so called research is just wishful thinking to fill a void. Create enough smoke, pretend it’s a fire.

The irreducible complexity problem of the minimum self evolving self replicating cell is a serious problem for how any of it happened.

I don’t have to prove anything.

The burden of proof is on those who think it all could have happened by random chance chemistry.
I’m entitled to incredulity. What is proposed is incredible. It’s up to such as bungle bear the case for why he thinks it can.

On the other hand I can point at ACTUAL forensic evidence of host became cardiac tissue in the Eucharist. Life where none existed before.

Bread so intimately intermingled at the edge of the heart tissue nobody could fake it even now. So however incredible that might sound there is at least some evidence it did, and does!
So I’ll stick with the evidence of creation, and offer credulity to the idea it all happened random chance.

My scepticism of the idea of climbing mount improbable to use Dawkins view is from professional experience of optimisation. Dawkins ignores all the problems,
Presumably because he has no experience whatsoever of the subject he writes volumes about.

Lot to unpack there. In the first place, no one supposes that life came about when the necessary inorganic chemicals just happened randomly to bump into one another. The odds against that happening are pretty much as you suppose. There would have to be a population of "almost" cells before it could happen, and then the odds are pretty good.

And none is to be expected. For all we know, the emergence of life could be a pretty common occurrance happening even now, but the simple proto-life produced would almost instantly become food for some existing creature and we wouldn't know about it.

Now all you have to do is show that such a thing exists in natural objects. You have to present us with a complex natural biological system, and demonstrate that it could not have been produced by a stochastic process.

 

[Mountainmike]

Yes, I know it was bad logic. That was the point. I was trying to point out that the argument "The genetic code is ordered, therefore it must have been designed" was equally bad.



Plausible ideas for the forerunners of cells have been presented since at least the 1920s. And it's entirely plausible that enzyme could have formed self-replicating molecules.

It’s not “ plausible”. It’s a guess with little or no evidence either that it did, or that it could. Despite a huge volume of money poured on origin of life , all there is is a pile of conjecture about how a few bits of it might have happened.

Dont get me wrong, I might be persuaded it happened , if ever there is evidence, my point is , it is not a logical consequence of enough time and places to happen. The very idea is incredible.

 

[Occams Barber]

So the atheist mantra that somehow they take a logical view of what is near inevitable given enough time and places to happen is hogwash. Atheist belief in random chance abiogenesis with no designer is just that: a totally unsupported belief bordering on the magical that Dawkins so attacks.

Abiogenesis is not an atheistic concept. It's a scientific concept. There is no atheistic position on abiogenesis or the the Big Bang or evolution. It's entirely possible to reject all three concepts and still be an atheist.

This misunderstanding alone would be enough to convince me that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Your central misunderstanding is to assume that life is special. It isn't. You assume it's special because it's familiar. The chemical mix percolating in an early Earth could have produced any number of outcomes. The fact that it produced life is neither amazing nor statistically improbable unless you assume it was destined to produce life. Your critical error is to assume, without reason, that life was a special and intentional outcome. You have confused the cart with the horse.

OB

 

[JohnPaul88]

God is Creator of all things, Heaven and Earth, every living creature, everything.

 

[Occams Barber]

God is Creator of all things, Heaven and Earth, every living creature, everything.

I know you believe this but there are people who see no evidence that this is true and are inclined to accept scientific, fact based explanations

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

I know you believe this but there are people who see no evidence that this is true and are inclined to accept scientific, fact based explanations.

We call those people "mission fields."

 

[ottawak]

God is Creator of all things, Heaven and Earth, every living creature, everything.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the OP, whiich is about "how" not "who."

 

[ottawak]

We call those people "mission fields."

You might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.

 

[Astrid]

God is Creator of all things, Heaven and Earth, every living creature, everything.

And IF that could be in any way shown to be anything but
a claim, an opinion stated as fact -
Does it mean He created everything just as it is?
Full size mountains, tall trees, etc?
Or that He created the most basic raw materials at the
big bang and then " stood back" and watched?

You seem very awfully sure of your facts- not- in- evidence.

Tell us more of what you somehow " know". Was it one
of the above scenarios or did you detect other facts?

 

[Astrid]

You might as well call them "wishful thinking." It might be possible to bring a person like Occam's Barber to Christ, but you will never bring him to Fundamentalism.

Wny do you think that is

 

[ottawak]

Wny do you think that is

Too much fatuous nonsense added to the Gospel.

 

[Astrid]

Too much fatuous nonsense added to the Gospel.

Thats not how I' d have put it, but key word for me thete
is nonsense.
I see a rather remote possibility of being Chridtian, but
reverting to the immature shallow mentality of a child
is not going to hapoen