the self replicating watch argument

[doubtingmerle]

In respect of a self replicating system, I am afraid that one shot is all you've got before you have to start all over again.


There have only been 15 billion years or so and the vast majority of that time has not been conducive to any form of biogenesis. Nevertheless for th sake of good humour we'll give you 15 billion years. The chances don't even come close. The number runs to a factor of more than 120. It is an actual physical impossibility to have drawn from the hat that many times.


Larger target? A larger target increases probability, but even the larger target is irrellevant really because it still does not produce a self replicating organism.
So how long do you expect the parts of the sequence to hang aroud blindly? 3 or 4 billion years?
Don't go doing what Dawkins has done by introducing a direction to your calculations, that would not be representative.

unless , of course, the process is started by self catalyzing RNA.

 

[doubtingmerle]

The demostrations are in front of us in the biological traits and organs that suddenly appear in the biological record with no anticedant and no path to incremental development possible. The first self replicating organism is a prime example.

How do you know there is no path possible?

 

[doubtingmerle]

How low do you think it could go? How long is the coherent sentence that you could make simply by stirring a pot of alphabet soup?

In English sentences, the letter sequence needs to be highly structured to make sense. For RNA and proteins, not so much.

 

[Anguspure]

unless , of course, the process is started by self catalyzing RNA.

...which would be a replicator and present an even greater feat of magic in that it would not be just replicating a mechanism but also an abstract.

 

[Anguspure]

How do you know there is no path possible?

Because a semi replicator that only partially replicates does not fly.
Most of the other inventions would present an impediment to survival, or serve no fitness advantage at best if only partially formed and so are selected against.

 

[Anguspure]

In English sentences, the letter sequence needs to be highly structured to make sense. For RNA and proteins, not so much.

This is simply untrue.

Allcutay th redndancy in Englishi far cniyevnog a missige inpite of a msseed pu urder is remkrably good.

Proteins that are not formed correctly serve no good function and are detrimental to the system.

If we boil the soup long enough, do you think we might come up with the first page of Moby Dick?

 

[Anguspure]

Plutarch, a first-century Greek historian, captured the universal design intuition nicely in an essay called “Fortune” (meaning chance): But can it be that those things which are most important and most essential for happiness do not call for intelligence, nor have any part in the processes of reason and forethought? Nobody wets clay with water and leaves it, assuming that by chance and accidentally there will be bricks, nor after providing himself with wool and leather does he sit down with a prayer to Chance that they turn into a cloak and shoes for him.

Axe, Douglas. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed

 

[Anguspure]

My paper opened by connecting this simplified view to work Max had done in the late 1960s. I knew this connection could backfire, though, because the rest of the paper described experiments that clearly showed the simplified view to be incorrect. Even I found this result surprising.

My experiments had been performed on two different enzymes— the general term for proteins that perform specific chemical transformations. Having shown in 1996 that a particular small enzyme continued to do its chemistry even after all its interior amino acids had been randomly replaced with water-repelling alternatives, I had assumed the exterior would be content with any combination of water-loving amino acids.

This turned out to be untrue. Shortly after I started the work, it became clear that both of the enzymes I was testing were completely inactivated after just a fraction of their exteriors were replaced in this haphazard way. I responded by redesigning the experiments, carefully replacing exterior amino acids in groups of five or ten, not haphazardly but with alternatives that were the most similar.

Again, both enzymes were ruined in the process, long before their exteriors had been fully replaced. The fact that the amino-acid replacements were now very conservative made this a significant result because it contradicted the prevailing view so clearly. These two proteins were much more fussy about the identities of amino acids on their exteriors than I and most other scientists had assumed, and moreover, the method by which I had shown this suggested the same was true of other proteins.

In short, I had shown that the ability of proteins to keep working after a small number of their amino acids are replaced— one of the main justifications of the simplified view— didn’t mean that these changes were harmless. It only meant the harm had not yet reached the breaking point. The breaking point is always reached as more changes are introduced, even changes of the conservative kind I was using.

Axe, Douglas. Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This is simply untrue.

Allcutay th redndancy in Englishi far cniyevnog a missige inpite of a msseed pu urder is remkrably good.

Imotcn vicdyou rrightabou thoegoodth einhrntre dundncyreal yis.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Everybody starts with a hypothesis. My hypothesis is that Darwinian evolution does not explain biological origins and recognises that the best explanation for the appearance of design in biological forms is a designer.

Well, anyone familiar with Evolution can tell you that it doesn't explain biological origins, let alone origin of life, so that didn't even have to be hypothesised, You're wrong on the second part though, there is no mechanism that isn't already explained by natural actions.

Yes, elements of the science used by evolutionists have been particularly useful, nobody is denying that.

so, cognitive dissonance on your part then? because you'll have to explain how you can hold contradictory positions that the Theory of Evolution is both useful and wrong despite it being in play for over a century and a half.

However making inferences that go way beyond the evidence because of this success is not warranted, is not science and brings the whole undertaking into disrepute.

Except the bit where you just acknowledged that it continuously makes useful and predictable results, you're right about anyone making inferences that go way beyond the evidence at any stage, let alone because it is successful - Religion and Gods are a good one... and they don't even have a successful (or any?) model for intelligent design going for them.

I have researched, everybody from Dawkins to Maddox aknowledges that we simply do not know how it all came together.

Correct, we don't There are a number of plausible pathways identified though, just that it may not be something we'll actually ever know for sure as to which particular way gave rise to life as we know it.

There are only 3 possible ways by which things such as this come together. They are: Chance, Physical Law or Design.

How do you know this, are you omniscient?

You are denying chance, which is fair enough because the probabilities are inconceivably small.

I denied your particularly specific chance scenario, yes, because you described a specific scenario that actually isn't required for a complex molecule to come about. Also, physics, chemical bonds, atomic theory and biology are thoroughly understood fields of science. Not much is random, and what is random is well understood.

No physical law has been identified capable of producing the observed effect inspite of concerted efforts to find one (this research ironically stifled and maligned by Darwinists).

And you are incorrect on this point. As the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated, the laws of chemistry and atomic bonds do indeed cause spontaneous production of proteins and enzymes required for life.

That leaves the 3rd possibility as being the best explanation and where all of the available evidence leads us.

You mean for which there is no evidence and no reason to think a designer is required? - What formal training and/or education do you have in Science and in particular, biology?

Muller-Urey demonstrated that compounds that are used in biological things are able to be formed under certain conditions.

Great! Were they random, or did they follow the known laws of physics, chemistry and atomic bonds?

It has long been recognised that the conditions they designed were not representative of any real world, nor where they conducive to conditions required for the subsequent formation of functional proteins.

Originally, yes. Then the revised atmospheric conditions that did close in on the atmospheric conditions of the time yielded better results for the spontaneous formations of these molecules. You got to that part, right? Your info seems to be about 50 years out of date.

There are about 250 naturally occuring amino acids that occur in either L or D types. Only 20 of these are used biologically and only the L type. In order to build a single functional protein a string of specific Amino acids must be arranged in a certain order and then folded in the right way. Get it wrong and the protein is not functional (never mind what the function might be).

Oh, so you agree then that these molecules and the chemistry involved follow the laws of physics to do what they do? That's a progress of sorts. Also, I'm sure you haven't read the Miller-Urey experiment thoroughly now, given that it has already spontaneously produced 10 of the 20 amino acids you acknowledge are required...

You do the math. It simply does not stack up (fantastically improbable), for one protein let alone the many thousands of different molecules that need to come together in order for even one self replicating organism to come together in the correct manner, by accident.

I think you completely fail at probability and statistics if you think that would be fantastically improbable.

Just curious, in your mind, do you think an entire planet of elements (that we already know create organic compounds spontaneously) over billions of years, that there's only like, a thousand molecules and they only get one go at randomising a working protein, or something? Have you actually read what the Miller-Urey experiment has yielded with just a handful of vats and 60 years? Yet you are personally incredulous at what an entire planet of chemicals and billions of years might achieve?

This is called begging the question.

Except of course, it isn't. We know how these processes work and none of them are a mystery. Perhaps you could point out what you know for a fact couldn't occur naturally? because it still seems to me like a great big argument from personal incredulity.

What you beleive is irrelevant. The mathematics is well proven and serves very succesfully in many fields, the only reason it is denied in biology is because some, who are fearful, wish to keep the foot of God out of the door.

that's because your mathematics fails at quantifying the biology we know as fact. Show us your mathematics and I'll point out why it fails. Better still, head along to any number of evolutionary demonstrations online and point out where their mistake is and why what's going on with improvement in their environments aren't actually improvements?

Evolution Simulator [FIXED] - OpenProcessing
TestTubeGames - Bringing Science to Life <== This one requires flash to be enabled, but it's fun to watch and good value!
BoxCar2D <== This too is a flashplayer, but same thing with some of the random designs it starts out with, quite spectacular & entertaining to see how they evolve...​

In all these examples, an environment is emulated and an organism is given rules to live by and is then randomised and selected for in the same (albeit in a very simplistic) way as Evolution does in reality. I encourage you to have a look at how well these randomly produced and selectively filtered organisms adapt to their environment. it will help you understand how successful this process is at producing what looks like intelligently designed biological systems when in fact no designing was involved at all, let alone any intelligent designing.

 

[Anguspure]

Well, anyone familiar with Evolution can tell you that it doesn't explain biological origins, let alone origin of life, so that didn't even have to be hypothesised, You're wrong on the second part though, there is no mechanism that isn't already explained by natural actions.

I am discussing biogenesis here. Invention remember not development. Of course Darwins theory works for survival of the fittest, it's just animal breading with random mutation being selected rather than a breeder selecting for a desired trait.

so, cognitive dissonance on your part then? because you'll have to explain how you can hold contradictory positions that the Theory of Evolution is both useful and wrong despite it being in play for over a century and a half.

No dissonance just a recognition of where the boundaries lie. There is no need to extrapolate beyond what the evidence shows, and the evidence does not show the invention of anything new from NS.

Except the bit where you just acknowledged that it continuously makes useful and predictable results, you're right about anyone making inferences that go way beyond the evidence at any stage, let alone because it is successful - Religion and Gods are a good one... and they don't even have a successful (or any?) model for intelligent design going for them.

Design is evident, the evidence shows design.

Correct, we don't There are a number of plausible pathways identified though, just that it may not be something we'll actually ever know for sure as to which particular way gave rise to life as we know it.

I have never seen anything remotely plausible, just enough hopeful story telling to keep the faithfull happy.

How do you know this, are you omniscient?

Basic philosophy.

I denied your particularly specific chance scenario, yes, because you described a specific scenario that actually isn't required for a complex molecule to come about. Also, physics, chemical bonds, atomic theory and biology are thoroughly understood fields of science. Not much is random, and what is random is well understood.

Well something that functions as a replicating system has to come about and the things that have come about display a heirachy of functionality that defeats any suggestion of chance.

And you are incorrect on this point. As the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated, the laws of chemistry and atomic bonds do indeed cause spontaneous production of proteins and enzymes required for life.

It is about as scientifically staggering as my daughter putting the ingredients together and producing a cake.

You mean for which there is no evidence and no reason to think a designer is required? - What formal training and/or education do you have in Science and in particular, biology?

Formal training in biology? None

Great! Were they random, or did they follow the known laws of physics, chemistry and atomic bonds?

There is no law of chemistry/atomic bonding that is capable of creating a functional replicator. If there was we would have observed it many moons ago and it is why people like Thomas Nagel are trying to make the voice of reason heard over the squaking.

Originally, yes. Then the revised atmospheric conditions that did close in on the atmospheric conditions of the time yielded better results for the spontaneous formations of these molecules. You got to that part, right? Your info seems to be about 50 years out of date.

...and the atmospheric conditions were found to be counter productive for subsequent development.

Oh, so you agree then that these molecules and the chemistry involved follow the laws of physics to do what they do? That's a progress of sorts. Also, I'm sure you haven't read the Miller-Urey experiment thoroughly now, given that it has already spontaneously produced 10 of the 20 amino acids you acknowledge are required...

Now we have picked up some stones, lets jumble them around until an amazing self replicating system appears. The leap in logic is as high as mount improbable, what happened to numerous small steps over millions upon millions of years?

I think you completely fail at probability and statistics if you think that would be fantastically improbable.

If the number is smaller than 10 to the -121 then it would be.

[/quote]Just curious, in your mind, do you think an entire planet of elements (that we already know create organic compounds spontaneously) over billions of years, that there's only like, a thousand molecules and they only get one go at randomising a working protein, or something? Have you actually read what the Miller-Urey experiment has yielded with just a handful of vats and 60 years? Yet you are personally incredulous at what an entire planet of chemicals and billions of years might achieve?[/quote]
Incredulous is an understatement. What I am incredulous about is that anybody would beleive such hogwash.

Except of course, it isn't. We know how these processes work and none of them are a mystery. Perhaps you could point out what you know for a fact couldn't occur naturally? because it still seems to me like a great big argument from personal incredulity.

What cannot occur through any identified natural process (apart from the process of intelligent design), nor by chance is the invention of a sufficiently functionally coherent system that it is capable of self replication.

that's because your mathematics fails at quantifying the biology we know as fact. Show us your mathematics and I'll point out why it fails. Better still, head along to any number of evolutionary demonstrations online and point out where their mistake is and why what's going on with improvement in their environments aren't actually improvements?

The reason that mathematics fails to fully quantify biology is because biology exhibits far more variables than we yet know.
This means that the math is actually a gross understatement of the true situation and that the actual probability that things can just pop into existence is many orders smaller than the generous calculations that we use.

Evolution Simulator [FIXED] - OpenProcessing
TestTubeGames - Bringing Science to Life <== This one requires flash to be enabled, but it's fun to watch and good value!
BoxCar2D <== This too is a flashplayer, but same thing with some of the random designs it starts out with, quite spectacular & entertaining to see how they evolve...
​

In all these examples, an environment is emulated and an organism is given rules to live by and is then randomised and selected for in the same (albeit in a very simplistic) way as Evolution does in reality. I encourage you to have a look at how well these randomly produced and selectively filtered organisms adapt to their environment. it will help you understand how successful this process is at producing what looks like intelligently designed biological systems when in fact no designing was involved at all, let alone any intelligent designing.

Unguided natural process simulator? Pah! I note that the selection is very well giuded. Fun to watch but in now way representative of the real world, and in fact underlines the fact that intelligence is needed to get the whole process underway and guide it in the direction of a desired outcome.

 

[Speedwell]

Unguided natural process simulator? Pah! I note that the selection is very well giuded. Fun to watch but in now way representative of the real world, and in fact underlines the fact that intelligence is needed to get the whole process underway and guide it in the direction of a desired outcome.

In evolution, the only "desired outcome" is the very next step of adaptation. Nothing beyond that.

 

[mark kennedy]

unless , of course, the process is started by self catalyzing RNA.

The problem with that is getting the self catalyzing RNA and then their ability to survive.

The discovery that RNA possesses catalytic ability provides a potential solution: a single macromolecule could have originally carried out both replication and catalysis. RNA – which constitutes the genome of RNA viruses, and catalyzes peptide synthesis on the ribosome – could have been both the chicken and the egg! However, the following objections have been raised to the RNA world hypothesis: (i) RNA is too complex a molecule to have arisen prebiotically; (ii) RNA is inherently unstable; (iii) catalysis is a relatively rare property of long RNA sequences only; and (iv) the catalytic repertoire of RNA is too limited. (The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory of the early evolution of life (except for all the others). NCBI)
​

The scenario seems unlikely at best.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I am discussing biogenesis here. Invention remember not development. Of course Darwins theory works for survival of the fittest, it's just animal breading with random mutation being selected rather than a breeder selecting for a desired trait.

Evolution also produces novel structures, which of course very few to none would've been around at the start of the first form of life.

No dissonance just a recognition of where the boundaries lie. There is no need to extrapolate beyond what the evidence shows, and the evidence does not show the invention of anything new from NS.

Great! You'll have no worries refuting these research articles then:

Exploring the Evolution of Novel Enzyme Functions within Structurally Defined Protein Superfamilies
Novel structural features of bovine papillomavirus capsid revealed by a three-dimensional reconstruction to 9 Å resolution <== (Requires Login)
Intracellular transcription of G-rich DNAs induces formation of G-loops, novel structures containing G4 DNA
Novel structures of plant lectins and their complexes with carbohydrates - ScienceDirect <== (Requires Login)
Herpes simplex virus DNA packaging sequences adopt novel structures that are specifically recognized by a component of the cleavage and packaging machinery​

.....On your cognitive dissonance - At least try to address my point, you acknowledged that the Theory of Evolution continuously makes useful and predictable results so how can you honestly disconnect your mutually exclusive beliefs of Evolution. it is either Incorrect, or So Correct that it's Useful. Which is it?

Design is evident, the evidence shows design.

Your Argument is Worthlessly Circular, Worthlessly Circular is your Argument.

There is no model of ID, feel free to drop one into this conversation anytime you're ready so we can discuss it.

I have never seen anything remotely plausible, just enough hopeful story telling to keep the faithfull happy.

At least it has evidence in its favour... https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html

and those referenced papers:

Temperature dependence of amino acid hydrophobicities
tRNA acceptor stem and anticodon bases form independent codes related to protein folding​

Given you don't require education in this field of science to recognise the evidence, i'd be interested to see you debunk this research with your insight.

Basic philosophy.

If Basic Philosophy is some sort of replacement for rational thinking and biological science, then that's something else you fail at given the evidence provided above...

Well something that functions as a replicating system has to come about and the things that have come about display a heirachy of functionality that defeats any suggestion of chance.

except for the evidence in those research papers posted above - seems it's a whole lot more likely and simpler than you imagined. I guess that must've been an oversight because I found it pretty easy - not sure how you could miss it if you were honest about the evidence.

It is about as scientifically staggering as my daughter putting the ingredients together and producing a cake.

No idea what that's supposed to mean given I don't know your daughter - I'll take it that you don't have an answer, so you agree then that you are incorrect on this point? As the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated, the laws of chemistry and atomic bonds do indeed cause spontaneous production of proteins and enzymes required for life.

Formal training in biology? None

So why would any rational thinker even entertain the idea that your incredulous views on Evolution being false, should be authoritive over the millions of biologists, researchers, medical staff, and scientists otherwise uncategorised throughout the world that have years if not decades of formal training in the field and continue to work actively contributing practical and useful research, findings and technology using Evolution?

There is no law of chemistry/atomic bonding that is capable of creating a functional replicator. If there was we would have observed it many moons ago and it is why people like Thomas Nagel are trying to make the voice of reason heard over the squaking.

....Thomas Nagel? What training does he have in Biology? Physics? (hint: None!) I might as well ask You on matters of Biology and Physics. As for your "no law of chemistry/atomic bonding that is capable of creating a functional replicator" nonsense, Behold!:

A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life <== (Requires Login)
A formal model of autocatalytic sets emerging in an RNA replicator system
The Origin of Life: Chemical Evolution of a Metabolic System in a Mineral Honeycomb? <== (Requires Login)
A chiroselective peptide replicator <== (Requires Login)

...and the atmospheric conditions were found to be counter productive for subsequent development.

You FAIL at reading comprehension. Go back and reread both what I said, and the Miller-Urey experiment. From the Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment :

"More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.[8]"​

and here's reference [8]: New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments - Chemical Society Reviews (RSC Publishing)

Now we have picked up some stones, lets jumble them around until an amazing self replicating system appears. The leap in logic is as high as mount improbable, what happened to numerous small steps over millions upon millions of years?

Fail for reasons described earlier. it seems you have no idea about the science you think you can refute.

If the number is smaller than 10 to the -121 then it would be.

Since you have no idea what you're talking about (especially given the actual evidence and hard data that literally flies in the face, refuting this provided above), I'm just going to let this soak.

Incredulous is an understatement. What I am incredulous about is that anybody would beleive such hogwash.

Despite all the evidence?? Do you even have any idea how you look given all the evidence provided above? I bet you believe there's a God though, and your specific God too, despite the incredible abilities and qualities and complete dearth of evidence.... Irony much?

What cannot occur through any identified natural process (apart from the process of intelligent design), nor by chance is the invention of a sufficiently functionally coherent system that it is capable of self replication.

evidence above for several methods. some that even achieve replication without auto-replication being required... that's gotta be a fly in the soup right there. I can't wait to see you address that evidence - I bet you won't even look at it and probably even deny it was actually provided.

The reason that mathematics fails to fully quantify biology is because biology exhibits far more variables than we yet know

or that aren't quantifiable mathematically.

This means that the math is actually a gross understatement of the true situation and that the actual probability that things can just pop into existence is many orders smaller than the generous calculations that we use.

Again, I refer you to the evidence provided above that completely contradicts your assertion.

Unguided natural process simulator? Pah! I note that the selection is very well giuded. Fun to watch but in now way representative of the real world, and in fact underlines the fact that intelligence is needed to get the whole process underway and guide it in the direction of a desired outcome.

Of course Selection is guided, who said it wasn't.... Wait! You don't think "Natural Selection" is a random process, do you?? lol!

5th grader recap of Evolution 101: Evolution is a genetically random process filtered by natural selection. That's to say, the genetics are random, then those genetic organisms are filtered through Natural Selection that singles out the Fittest few for the environment. It really is that simple! These simulated environments are testament to the Theory! An environment is provided, organisms are randomly modified (i.e. no design or direction) and then only the fittest organisms go on to reproduce the next generation. How is that not analogous to Evolution?

It is Exactly representative of the real-world process of evolution! Tell me what is different if you don't agree ( and if you answer nothing else, This is the one answer I'd like to get!).

 

[xianghua]

Darwin provided a falsification of Natural Selection as a TOE. He wrote: "…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps...If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Charles Darwin

good point. we actually do have evidence for this. for instance: a minimal cell need about 100 genes accoroding to the scientific evidence:

How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept - Annual Reviews Collection - NCBI Bookshelf

so according to the scientific knowlage evolution is false. the burdon of proof is on the evolution side.

 

[xianghua]

How do you know there is no path possible?

see my binding site example:

you need to start from something.

 

[Anguspure]

good point. we actually do have evidence for this. for instance: a minimal cell need about 100 genes accoroding to the scientific evidence:

How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept - Annual Reviews Collection - NCBI Bookshelf

so according to the scientific knowlage evolution is false. the burdon of proof is on the evolution side.

Wow 100 genes! Given that genes don't simply exist in a vacuum this makes the minimal cell staggeringly more complicated and requiring significantly higher levels of functional coherence than I have been willing to concede until now.

 

[pitabread]

good point. we actually do have evidence for this. for instance: a minimal cell need about 100 genes accoroding to the scientific evidence:

How Many Genes Can Make a Cell: The Minimal-Gene-Set Concept - Annual Reviews Collection - NCBI Bookshelf

so according to the scientific knowlage evolution is false. the burdon of proof is on the evolution side.

That's a minimal genome for a modern DNA-based cellular organism. This isn't necessarily what the earliest life would have looked like. Consequently, your conclusion doesn't follow.

 

[Anguspure]

Evolution also produces novel structures, which of course very few to none would've been around at the start of the first form of life.

Great! You'll have no worries refuting these research articles then:

Exploring the Evolution of Novel Enzyme Functions within Structurally Defined Protein Superfamilies
Novel structural features of bovine papillomavirus capsid revealed by a three-dimensional reconstruction to 9 Å resolution <== (Requires Login)
Intracellular transcription of G-rich DNAs induces formation of G-loops, novel structures containing G4 DNA
Novel structures of plant lectins and their complexes with carbohydrates - ScienceDirect <== (Requires Login)
Herpes simplex virus DNA packaging sequences adopt novel structures that are specifically recognized by a component of the cleavage and packaging machinery​

.....On your cognitive dissonance - At least try to address my point, you acknowledged that the Theory of Evolution continuously makes useful and predictable results so how can you honestly disconnect your mutually exclusive beliefs of Evolution. it is either Incorrect, or So Correct that it's Useful. Which is it?

All of these articles represent various arguments for evolutionary development of already existing forms and say nothing about biogenesis, which is invention. They are also scattered with apriori assumptions, just so stories and evidence that could just as easily be used to show design.

Your Argument is Worthlessly Circular, Worthlessly Circular is your Argument.

It is not circular to say that the best explanation for design, when it is evident, is the only cause of design that has ever been observed.
It is circular to say that all things must have originated from natural selection because we see things that have originated from NS, especially when NS is not even capable of producing the observed effect which is the origin of something new, that is biological life.

There is no model of ID, feel free to drop one into this conversation anytime you're ready so we can discuss it.

At least it has evidence in its favour... https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html

and those referenced papers:

Temperature dependence of amino acid hydrophobicities
tRNA acceptor stem and anticodon bases form independent codes related to protein folding​

The model for ID proposes design and that's all. It leaves the way for research open minded unlike the NS model that workd to shoe horn everything into a very narrow minded framework.
The model for creationism is that God spoke things into existence.

Given you don't require education in this field of science to recognise the evidence, i'd be interested to see you debunk this research with your insight.

I don't expect to be able to debunk the research. It all beleives in an assumption (Strict Naturalism) that I do not buy anyway.
So the start of my negation would be that any model that purpots to explain the reality of life, the universe and everything, and assumes methodological naturalism at its core is likely to be flawed.
Most science doesn't need to go that far, and scientific papers only make reference to the dogma of Darwinian evolution because it is all but compulsory to do so, they then go onto ignore the whole silly business and examine the subject from a view point of design anyway.

If Basic Philosophy is some sort of replacement for rational thinking and biological science, then that's something else you fail at given the evidence provided above...

Philosophy is the basis for all rational thinking. If your basic philosophy is flawed then everything that you do will reflect the foundation that you build on.
The idea that functionally coherent systems at the basic biological level can suddenly pop into existence, from no cause, confounds the basic philosophy that something cannot come from nothing.​

except for the evidence in those research papers posted above - seems it's a whole lot more likely and simpler than you imagined. I guess that must've been an oversight because I found it pretty easy - not sure how you could miss it if you were honest about the evidence.

See the paper referenced by @xianghua above.

No idea what that's supposed to mean given I don't know your daughter - I'll take it that you don't have an answer, so you agree then that you are incorrect on this point? As the Miller-Urey experiments demonstrated, the laws of chemistry and atomic bonds do indeed cause spontaneous production of proteins and enzymes required for life.

ROFL. So now you would have to know my daughter before you would aknowledge that ingredients that come together in a certain recipe make something else.
But you are wrong about proteins. The experiments show that aminos (the building blocks for proteins are synthesized), and that they may at times link together into strings.
Do you think that if my daughter just threw the ingrediants at the oven that a yummy cake would come out? I suspect you might. The truth is that among all of the myraids of possible combinations of ingredients that are available according to the laws of physics etc, there are very few that are funtionally useful, and then only as part of a functionally coherent system.

So why would any rational thinker even entertain the idea that your incredulous views on Evolution being false, should be authoritive over the millions of biologists, researchers, medical staff, and scientists otherwise uncategorised throughout the world that have years if not decades of formal training in the field and continue to work actively contributing practical and useful research, findings and technology using Evolution?

Because a ratioanl thinker knows that democaracy, establishment and peer pressure form no part in the legitimate scientific endeavour.
The rational thinker will cast his mind back over the history of thinking and consider the times when these things have prevailed and see the absolute nonsense (often dangerous nonsense) that is pushed as truth in that climate.
The rational thinker knows that the humanity is very prone to herd mentality and that professional training has a large element of this tendancy underpinning it.
The rational thinker will always hold himself a little skeptical of radical claims

....Thomas Nagel? What training does he have in Biology? Physics? (hint: None!) I might as well ask You on matters of Biology and Physics.

So even a highly respected Philsopher is expected to bow to the high priesthood of Biological Scientism?
Have you read his book?Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False by Thomas Nagel
It makes a very powerful point in respect of this argument.

As for your "no law of chemistry/atomic bonding that is capable of creating a functional replicator" nonsense, Behold!:

A Replicator Was Not Involved in the Origin of Life <== (Requires Login)
A formal model of autocatalytic sets emerging in an RNA replicator system
The Origin of Life: Chemical Evolution of a Metabolic System in a Mineral Honeycomb? <== (Requires Login)
A chiroselective peptide replicator <== (Requires Login)

LOL of course a replicator was not involved in the origin of life! How twisted can one get?
Are you now denying that NS played a part in the development of species after life was originated? In case you are not aware, NS requires a replicator. The replicator I refer to is the life that originated itself, a self replicating organism (perhaps you thought I am referring to a photocopying machine).

You FAIL at reading comprehension. Go back and reread both what I said, and the Miller-Urey experiment. From the Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Urey_experiment :

"More recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a composition different from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.[8]"​

and here's reference [8]: New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller's spark discharge experiments - Chemical Society Reviews (RSC Publishing)

Fail for reasons described earlier. it seems you have no idea about the science you think you can refute.

More complicated recipes for the cake I see, but a way of sponateously bringing it all together to make a functional protein or a self replicating organism, I do not.

Despite all the evidence?? Do you even have any idea how you look given all the evidence provided above? I bet you believe there's a God though, and your specific God too, despite the incredible abilities and qualities and complete dearth of evidence.... Irony much?

The way in which all of this very nice evidence is presented is fundamentally flawed. If lots of high brow types think that it is foolish to point this truth out, that is their loss.

evidence above for several methods. some that even achieve replication without auto-replication being required... that's gotta be a fly in the soup right there.

Ever heard of perpetual motion? I have seen some very good "evidence" for that as well, that is until one looks a little closer. The beleivers in that froth at the mouth equally as much when it is pointed out how absurd the concept is.
Irrespective of what you maintain, whatever process you invoke, there is a functionally coherent system of some sort that demands an explanation, and explanation that is not supplied by the probabilites that present nor by a plausible natural process that would cause the system to function.

I can't wait to see you address that evidence - I bet you won't even look at it and probably even deny it was actually provided.

Had a look and it's more of the same old. Very academic, and convuluted ways of trying to wedge close that door against everything that the world tells us.

or that aren't quantifiable mathematically.

Wow! Now denying that mathematics forms a basis of science as well I see. First Philosophy is irellevant and now mathematics.

Again, I refer you to the evidence provided above that completely contradicts your assertion.

Does not contradict, rather it seeks to contradict and wishes to encourage research to falsify the assertion. But a wee way to go yet.

Of course Selection is guided, who said it wasn't.... Wait! You don't think "Natural Selection" is a random process, do you?? lol!
5th grader recap of Evolution 101: Evolution is a genetically random process filtered by natural selection. That's to say, the genetics are random, then those genetic organisms are filtered through Natural Selection that singles out the Fittest few for the environment. It really is that simple! These simulated environments are testament to the Theory! An environment is provided, organisms are randomly modified (i.e. no design or direction) and then only the fittest organisms go on to reproduce the next generation. How is that not analogous to Evolution?

Natural selection is guided by relative fitness of mutated organisms in a population. It gives the thumbs up for survival to a fitter organism and the less fit organism is bred out of the population or dies.

So Natural Selection must first have a mutation to work with, whether to give it the thumbs up or thumbs down.

If the mutation is guided (as by a designer) Natural Selection would supply a mechanism by which the success of the design in the environement might be established. But this would no longer be mindless evolution, rather it would reflect a design development.

If the mutation comes about randomly then Natural Selection will select and determine the direction of change, towards fitter but the Evolutionary process will be seen to be fundamentally random and unguided. If a subsequent beneficial mutation does not occur, if a detrimental mutation happens, then the direction of change will reverse and any previous benefits will be lost.

So the term Natural Selection taken on its own describes a guiding principle (be it a limited one), whereas the Non-intelligent Evolutionary Theory describes a process that because it is driven by random mutation is fundamentally unguided.

It is Exactly representative of the real-world process of evolution! Tell me what is different if you don't agree ( and if you answer nothing else, This is the one answer I'd like to get!).

And that is exactly why all of us who recognise the flaw in the system must continue to tap away on our keyboards, that the believers in one of the biggest frauds of our times would have us shutup.

But as I pointed out in respect of Dawkins a while back the truth is that in the activity of people such as yourself, and the whole populist science thing, there is a very good platform from which the voices of reason can speak.

 

[Anguspure]

That's a minimal genome for a modern DNA-based cellular organism. This isn't necessarily what the earliest life would have looked like. Consequently, your conclusion doesn't follow.

1+1 still equalled 2, even many billions of years ago.
The first organim(s) upon which Natural Selection could have guided development must have been a population of organisms that were capable of being fitter for reproduction than the other organisms.

For the sake of the argument I am willing to come down to much lower levels than 100 genes. So name your minimal level of functional complexity.

Are we going to say that a single peptide can reproduce into a population of peptides subject to Natural Selection?

I'm not sure what magic could cause this but design seems to be pretty strong magic.