RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (639) < ... 284 285 286 287 288 [289] 290 291 292 293 294 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:21   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,20:03)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 14 2008,11:34)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,19:28)
       
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 13 2008,13:42)
Daniel:

At which SPECIFIC point in the abiogenetic development of life on this planet is non-natural intervention necessary. Which SPECIFIC step in the (proposed, natural) process is impossible? Where, SPECIFICALLY, is the discontinuity that demands non-natural means to cross?

I want the actual chemical process that is "impossible". Detail, I crave detail.

Louis

Louis,

I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".  What I called "impossible" was man's ability to explain what those exact steps were.

So let me rephrase your question:

What is the SPECIFIC (proposed, natural) process for the abiogenetic development of life on this planet?  I want the actual chemical process. Detail, I crave detail.

Ok then, what do you want? The exact route taken, 100% certain to be the identical one traced back in the dim recesses of history? Because I seriously doubt we'll ever get that. Or do you want the detail of the myriad likely scenarios that exist (which is what we have now) with no optimum yet described?

Also, there's quite a lot of chemistry involved I'm at least relatively certain you won't understand, I'll suggest a few books if it'll help.

And lastly, you haven't answered the question or even tried to. You've merely appealed to current ignorance, and if that's the best you can do, I'll leave you with 'Ras and the yoghurt, because frankly, the yoghurt is about the right level.

Louis

What I want is an undisputed (by the experts), verifiable (all chemical steps worked out), possible pathway from non-life to life, or (if you read my blog) from some plausible precursor to the present E. coli amino acid synthesis system for lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine.  There must be sufficient detail and the scientific community must reach a consensus that, 'yes, we've figured it out'.

Now, I don't have the background in chemistry to fully understand most of this.  I'm currently studying a biochemistry textbook to try to learn as much as I can about such things.  In fact that's where I got the idea for this prediction in the first place.  I found the  E. Coli biochemical pathway in there and I thought, "how do they explain this?".

As for your question:  You tell me.  What are the current hangups?  What are the big hurdles in OOL research?  You see, my prediction is not dependent on my limited understanding of chemistry and the issues, it's dependent on the understanding of the best and the brightest among us.  I'm predicting they'll never find the answer.

Ok then Danny, if genuine curiosity is what you're all about, then hop on over to the abiogenesis thread, there's a few references over there for you to start on.

Unless of course you expect me to type out an entire field of science and centuries of work in this thread!

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2275
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:28   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2008,12:18)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 14 2008,14:11)
Incoherent          
Quote
lacking coherence: as a: lacking cohesion : loose b: lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent <an incoherent essay> c: lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought <incoherent with grief>

Eighteen minutes apart:
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,11:28)
I didn't characterize any chemical steps as "impossible".

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,11:46)
It's the ability to provide possible steps that I'm predicting will be impossible.

Oh, it is far worse than that, John. Far worse.

Daniel essentially concedes that a natural sequence of chemical reactions could have, over time, led to life.  His whole argument is that, while it may be possible, we'll never figure it out.  He is essentially betting that our collective ignorance regarding the path of abiogenesis will never be solved.

EDIT: He would have been better off just sticking to the party line that chemical abiogenesis is impossible.  But, he apparently doesn't have a silent inner voice.

Oh, I know that, carlsonjok.  In fact, it's even worse than that.  He wants scientific unanimity on every single stage of the process - not just proof of a specific mode of abiogenesis, but precise, undisputed details of exactly how, when and where it happened.  With photographs, and sworn statements from witnesses.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:38   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 14 2008,14:28)
Oh, I know that, carlsonjok.  In fact, it's even worse than that.  He wants scientific unanimity on every single stage of the process - not just proof of a specific mode of abiogenesis, but precise, undisputed details of exactly how, when and where it happened.  With photographs, and sworn statements from witnesses.

All I can say is that Daniel has laid out a trenchant argument regarding design.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,14:43   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2008,14:38)
All I can say is that Daniel has laid out a trenchant argument regarding design.

Yes, it is indeed a masterpiece of trenchant arguing regarding design.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2275
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,15:03   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Oct. 14 2008,12:38)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 14 2008,14:28)
Oh, I know that, carlsonjok.  In fact, it's even worse than that.  He wants scientific unanimity on every single stage of the process - not just proof of a specific mode of abiogenesis, but precise, undisputed details of exactly how, when and where it happened.  With photographs, and sworn statements from witnesses.

All I can say is that Daniel has laid out a trenchant argument regarding design.

Truly amazing research, Daniel!

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4244
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,15:07   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 13 2008,14:17)
How can one make a prediction without assuming their own conclusion?  When scientists make predictions based on the TOE, they're assuming that the TOE is correct and basing their predictions on that assumption.  

By making predictions that are empirically untestable some time before the end of science, and the end of history. "No solution will ever be found to OOL" fails to qualify in that respect.
     
Quote
I am basing my prediction (that no solution will ever be found for the OOL) based on the assumption that we live in a God-centered universe.

Your assertion has the grammatical form of a prediction, but is scientifically empty because untestable, and cannot guide empirical research. Hence it will forever remain both assumption and conclusion, only, and will remain an empty armchair contribution to the discusion. Evolutionary biology and related sciences, by constrast, make myriad testable predictions that can and do, in fact, guide both fieldwork and laboratory research.  
     
Quote
I said the opposite; that if an infinite intelligence originated life, it would follow that there would be an ultimate failure to solve OOL.  It's a subtle distinction, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Actually, not a difference "in the world," because the difference you propose results in a proposition with no observable consequences "in the world" that test your assertion as stated. This is why it has the form of a prediction, but no content as a prediction.  
     
Quote
I (obviously) don't see it that way.  When I look at life and its workings, I feel like I'm looking directly into the mind of God.  I view it as fascinating, mind-boggling technology.  It's an opportunity for man to learn about the workings of an infinite mind.  It should stir us to further study.

Having said that, describe the empirically testable propositions regarding the natural world that arise uniquely from that viewpoint, sketch a procedure for making the requisite observations, and describe potential findings that would place your assertion "at risk" of falsification.
     
Quote

OTOH, looking at life as if it is just the end result of a series of fortunate accidents is the ultimate dead end IMO.

Even as that model continues to fuel productive empirical research.

[brief insertions for clarity]

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2008,16:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,15:03)
 I'm predicting they'll never find the answer.

Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), ca. 1895, British mathematician and physicist

...no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force, can be united in a practical machine by which man shall fly long distances through the air...
- Simon Newcomb (1835-1909), astronomer, head of the U. S. Naval Observatory.


and a host of other "predictions".

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/neverwrk.htm

enjoy.  :)

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,01:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,12:03)
What I want is an undisputed (by the experts), verifiable (all chemical steps worked out), possible pathway from non-life to life, or (if you read my blog) from some plausible precursor to the present E. coli amino acid synthesis system for lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine.  There must be sufficient detail and the scientific community must reach a consensus that, 'yes, we've figured it out'.

Suppose you asked "the experts" in 1850 to give an equivalent description of any of the thousands of chemical process that we understand today.

Would their inability to do so constitute evidence for a designed universe ? Should Mendeleev have just said "obviously the work of an incomprehensible designer!" and moved on to something sensible, like prayer and flagellation ?

Science, unlike dogma, freely admits to not having complete answers. Of course we can't be certain that answers will be found, but so far it has done a hell of a lot better than explanations rooted in ancient myths.

Not a record I'd bet against.

  
Quack



Posts: 1778
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,02:21   

Quote
I'm predicting they'll never find the answer.


Seems to me science has a rather impressive track record of finding answers to questions and problems deemed 'improbable' ever since Aristotle. Who/what  says that has now come to an end?

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,08:21   

you materialist darwinist from ATBC cannot show me how selection she make tiny spider the mimic of ze tiny ant.  yet selectionist propagandakegaggen materialist insist on "Yet It must Be So" ignoring great works of ze Daniel Smithikaggen and Heikertinger that show it may or may not be so but eez impossible to ze prove.  Frustrated darwinist so we have here, that cannot provide an electronikagen by electronimorgen account of step by step since is all in selectionist heads.  As Great biologist and my frind Davison say I Love It So!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:01   

Random discovery!

If you google "creotard" and hit I'm Feeling Lucky.....It takes you to Richard Dawkin's website.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 14 2008,14:03)
As for your question:  You tell me.  What are the current hangups?  What are the big hurdles in OOL research?  You see, my prediction is not dependent on my limited understanding of chemistry and the issues, it's dependent on the understanding of the best and the brightest among us.  I'm predicting they'll never find the answer.

hahahahahahahahahahaahahah

Still a Moron then Daniel? Carry on....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
chunkdz

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:43   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

Wow. It's over a week later, and what an overwhelming response from the mighty "defenders of science"!

A free open invitation to explore science. And what do the "science defenders" do?

Why, they stare glassy eyed, drool, and sit in their own feces of course.

Hey Coturnix, here's a hint. If you want any response from these monkeys that might actually demonstrate some primitive form of cognition, your conference should include a "Dunk the Creationist" tank and a "Behe Book Burning". That should get the poo flying.

You didn't think these morons actually cared about science for science's sake, did you?

PvM

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:43   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

Nice projecting ChunkDZ.

What have you done for science lately?


PS: The invitation was for the conference. Perhaps another example of your reading and comprehension problems?

<blockquote>
<strong>chunkdz said:</strong>

Wow. It's over a week later, and what an overwhelming response from the mighty "defenders of science"!

A free open invitation to explore science. And what do the "science defenders" do?

Why, they stare glassy eyed, drool, and sit in their own feces of course.

Hey Coturnix, here's a hint. If you want any response from these monkeys that might actually demonstrate some primitive form of cognition, your conference should include a "Dunk the Creationist" tank and a "Behe Book Burning". That should get the poo flying.

You didn't think these morons actually cared about science for science's sake, did you?
</blockquote>

PvM

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:43   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

I visited the registration link

<quote># Registration is closed — we’ve hit our limit. Send a message to info@scienceonline09.com to get your name on the waitlist (we expect some registered individuals to cancel closer to the event). See who has already registered.</quote>

Wow

PvM

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:43   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

So ChunkDZ, regretting your words once again :-) No worries, Dembski admires you.. I know, not much but better than nothing.

chunkdz

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:43   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

Pvm:
<quote>So ChunkDZ, regretting your words once again. </quote>


The only regret should be that you slobbering, rabid, feces eating chimps missed an opportunity to attend a REAL science conference for FREE but you were too busy running your fingers through that puddle of saliva that you are wallowing in.

Maybe next year they'll burn Dembski in effigy, since that's obviously what it would take to get you morons interested in science.

Until then, you have the whole year to pick fleas off of each other and eat them. Enjoy.

PvM

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,12:43   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

Ah, that's the sweet ChunkDZ I remember. You're a riot, thanks for playing

<blockquote>
<strong>chunkdz said:</strong>

Pvm:
<quote>So ChunkDZ, regretting your words once again. </quote>


The only regret should be that you slobbering, rabid, feces eating chimps missed an opportunity to attend a REAL science conference for FREE but you were too busy running your fingers through that puddle of saliva that you are wallowing in.

Maybe next year they'll burn Dembski in effigy, since that's obviously what it would take to get you morons interested in science.

Until then, you have the whole year to pick fleas off of each other and eat them. Enjoy.
</blockquote>

Henry J



Posts: 4083
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,13:24   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 15 2008,07:21)
you materialist darwinist from ATBC cannot show me how selection she make tiny spider the mimic of ze tiny ant.  yet selectionist propagandakegaggen materialist insist on "Yet It must Be So" ignoring great works of ze Daniel Smithikaggen and Heikertinger that show it may or may not be so but eez impossible to ze prove.  Frustrated darwinist so we have here, that cannot provide an electronikagen by electronimorgen account of step by step since is all in selectionist heads.  As Great biologist and my frind Davison say I Love It So!

Not enough capital letters in that. ;)

  
chunkdz

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,14:22   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

You can hide your shame from the public, but you can't hide your shame from yourselves.

Pathetic.

PvM

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,14:22   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

Love your autobiographic note my dear friend.

<blockquote>
<strong>chunkdz said:</strong>

You can hide your shame from the public, but you can't hide your shame from yourselves.

Pathetic.
</blockquote>

dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,15:21   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 15 2008,13:24)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 15 2008,07:21)
you materialist darwinist from ATBC cannot show me how selection she make tiny spider the mimic of ze tiny ant.  yet selectionist propagandakegaggen materialist insist on "Yet It must Be So" ignoring great works of ze Daniel Smithikaggen and Heikertinger that show it may or may not be so but eez impossible to ze prove.  Frustrated darwinist so we have here, that cannot provide an electronikagen by electronimorgen account of step by step since is all in selectionist heads.  As Great biologist and my frind Davison say I Love It So!

Not enough capital letters in that. ;)

No pictures of ladybirds either.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
chunkdz

Unregistered



(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,15:36   

From OpenLab 2008 and ScienceOnline 2009:

PvM,
<quote>How ironic, seems the author has decided to clean up the threads.</quote>

What's ironic about a poo-flinging culture warrior erasing the thoughts of his perceived enemies?

Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,16:26   

I've read through all your comments and I must say that none of you have tried to answer my question save Louis, who provided numerous links to abiogenesis papers which, I'm sure, amount to a bunch of head scratching by the best and brightest.  (Note to Louis:  Don't bother telling me when they're close (they're not now).  Let me know when they've figured it out.)

Now, let me say this, although you all have turned this into an abiogenesis argument, it doesn't have to be.  You see, I'm predicting that man will never be able to chart a detailed course for the origin of any of life's systems.  It's not just OOL, it's OOA (origin of anything).

The beauty of my prediction is that it doesn't depend on my knowledge of science, it depends on yours - all of you.  I'm predicting, not only that you don't know how any of life's systems came about, but that you never will!

It seems you'd all be chomping at the bit to prove me wrong by citing one of the trillions of life's systems for which a detailed evolutionary pathway has been found, but for some reason all I get are supposedly smart people denigrating me for my lack of knowledge.

Evotards?  Maybe.

PS.  JohnW, I'm not conceding a possible chemical pathway: I'm saying there is none.  The mere fact that the best chemists among us cannot find any possible chemical pathways for OOL, nor any possible biochemical pathways for OOA, speaks volumes about the "impossibility" of natural origins.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
didymos



Posts: 1825
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,17:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 15 2008,14:26)

Now, let me say this, although you all have turned this into an abiogenesis argument, it doesn't have to be.

WTF?  Chucky, did you not kick this whole thing off by linking to your "Argument From Impossibility"?  Do you recall what the first sentence of that was?  Apparently not:

     
Quote
I propose that the ultimate origins of life on this planet will forever be impossible to fully explain.


Now, that bolded part?  You know that there's another way to say that right?  It's fucking (that one's for Louis) abiogenesis.  So, there's no "you all" turning this into anything. It's exactly the discussion you wanted, and it's what you've gotten.  Your memory is either severely impaired or you're just dishonest.

     
Quote

PS.  JohnW, I'm not conceding a possible chemical pathway: I'm saying there is none.  The mere fact that the best chemists among us cannot find any possible chemical pathways for OOL, nor any possible biochemical pathways for OOA, speaks volumes about the "impossibility" of natural origins.


Ah yes: very trenchant indeed.  Just like generations of the best mathematicians among us failing to devise any proof of Fermat's Last Theorem spoke volumes about the impossibility of said proof.  Oh, wait, that's right: 357 years later a couple guys ended up proving it using completely novel techniques unknown to pre-20th century mathematics.

(edited for formatting, then again for grammar)

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,17:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 15 2008,16:26)
I've read through all your comments and I must say that none of you have tried to answer my question save Louis, who provided numerous links to abiogenesis papers which, I'm sure, amount to a bunch of head scratching by the best and brightest.

So, you've not read them? Boy the bible thumping must have damaged your brain. You are supposed to read it , not hit yourself over the head with it.
You sound just like Behe on the stand, "No I've not actually read any of the papers I claim don't exist sat on the table there". Like Behe, even if you had the ability to understand them you'd reject them anyway.  
Quote
(Note to Louis:  Don't bother telling me when they're close (they're not now).  Let me know when they've figured it out.)

When he lets you know that, how will you check his answer to make sure he's not cheating?
 
Quote
Now, let me say this, although you all have turned this into an abiogenesis argument, it doesn't have to be.

I've seen little actual "argument" from you, well what normal people would call argument anyway. Just lots of fundie buzzwords that it seems to me you were quite careful to avoid in your previous foray here. The rabid mouth frothing finally fought it's way out huh?
 
Quote
You see, I'm predicting that man will never be able to chart a detailed course for the origin of any of life's systems.  It's not just OOL, it's OOA (origin of anything).

I'm predicting that man could not chart a detailed course for the journey I took only yesterday. And that the exact banana I'm about to eat only appears once in the universe. Odd how you can't provide a end to end detailed course for something that happened yesterday, considering it was only yesterday. To balancing your faith on "man" not finding a end to end detailed verified course for the origin of any of life's systems gives you a couple of problems - if one is found, you then logically stop believing in "god" and the other is you just look a fool for rejecting work you don't even understand (as above) as not proving the case when you've already decided in advance the answer anyway.
 
Quote
The beauty of my prediction is that it doesn't depend on my knowledge of science, it depends on yours - all of you.  I'm predicting, not only that you don't know how any of life's systems came about, but that you never will!

I don't know about anybody else but I'm seeing a bitter old man gloating at a secret victory, clinging onto something, anything, despite the fact he knows he's really grasping at straws. The beauty of your prediction is that you would not even understand any attempt to answer it. You'd just trust experts like Behe.
 
Quote
It seems you'd all be chomping at the bit to prove me wrong by citing one of the trillions of life's systems for which a detailed evolutionary pathway has been found, but for some reason all I get are supposedly smart people denigrating me for my lack of knowledge.

You are pissing against the bathroom wall. If you want to be proven wrong, do it yourself, go read a book. Go meet some normal people, go to a class. Don't sit in your church basement with your biology text book muttering "man will never be able to chart a detailed course for the origin of any of life's systems" to yourself over and over.
 
Quote
Evotards?  Maybe.

Hahah, baby learnt a new word! Good baby!
 
Quote
PS.  JohnW, I'm not conceding a possible chemical pathway: I'm saying there is none.  The mere fact that the best chemists among us cannot find any possible chemical pathways for OOL, nor any possible biochemical pathways for OOA, speaks volumes about the "impossibility" of natural origins.

What primary research have you read that's lead you to take this position then? And is it the walls that tell you there are no chemical pathways to life? Is your god so small that it could not create a universe where chemicals can become alive? I guess it can't create a thing too heavy for it to life either? Get some fresh air Danny boy!

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,17:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 01 2007,21:26)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ Oct. 01 2007,07:31)
Re the search for evidence of life on Mars, there are three possible outcomes that I can foresee.

1:Evidence is found for a life-form totally different from anything seen on Earth, say, not even based on carbon, but, for instance, built on silicon.

2: Evidence is found for a life-form bearing distinct similarities to terrestrial lifeforms.

3; No evidence found.

If 1, abiogenesis is almost inevitable on any suitable planet, given enough time.

If 2, lifeforms such as bacterial spores may travel across space as passengers in meteorites. (Panspermia)

If 3, we still don't know.

One other option for #2:

If we find life on another planet that is distinctly similar to our own, it could mean that abiogenesis acts according to laws as well.

Denton's position, as expressed in "Nature's Destiny", was that any life, anywhere else in the universe, would have to be remarkably similar to our own.

But now you'll write him? Tell him abiogenesis is impossible?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,17:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 15 2008,16:26)
The beauty of my prediction is that it doesn't depend on my knowledge of science, it depends on yours - all of you.  I'm predicting, not only that you don't know how any of life's systems came about, but that you never will!

Shorter Daniel: Ignorance is bliss.

Well played, sir, well played.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,17:22   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,15:32)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 28 2007,06:05)
 
Is there anything that design predicts that evolution does not?

Seems as everything evolution can do, the designer(s) can also do. So your position is essentially meaningless unless you can somehow differentiate the two.

Is there a differentiation somewhere between the two things?

I could say the same thing about the currently held theory.  Is there anything that will ever be found that you won't somehow make to fit and eventually make to be a prediction of the currently held theory?
Are  protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, intelligence, speech, flight, sight, hearing, circulatory systems, etc. predicted by the current theory?
Since the current theory predicts "happy accidents", anything useful is then said to be predicted.
ID predicts useful features as well, so we're back to square one aren't we?
       
Quote

Are there any predictions of design that are not retrospective? I.E make a prediction for a something that's currently unknown that can be tested and the result will unambigiously say "designed" or "evolved".

If not, it seems to be all "design predictions" are worthless if they predict exactly the same things that evolution does.

Pointless.

Can you point me to a list of as yet untested "predictions" that common descent by design makes, or are they only available retrospectively? If the latter, then give up now, you'll never be able to convince anybody.

Some predictions (these are my own and in no way represent predictions of the ID movement in general):

Because evolution is proactive, not reactive:

Organisms will show evidence of preparation for anticipated environments; rudiments of organs not yet needed will be found.
When confronted with environmental changes, organisms will adapt using pre-existing features (already coded for in the genome) or will become extinct - no new features will develop slowly over time.
Patterns and laws will be found that govern how evolution works.

From the fossil record:
Lineages will be found to have begun before environments in which they later flourished began.
Mass extinctions will have been preceded by the introduction of new types that would dominate the next phase in earth’s cycle.
Organisms will be found to have begun the adaptive process before adaptation was necessary.
Patterns will be found in the origin, differentiation and eventual extinction of lineages that are not dependent upon environmental factors but exist across all manner of differing environments, geographical locations, types of organisms and ages.

Genetically:
Mathematical patterns not explainable by the current theory will be found when comparing sequences of different organisms.
The genetic code will be found to be more sophisticated and more robust than previously thought.
Embedded and overlapping coding will be found to be more prevalent than previously thought.
Careful examination of genomes will find preparatory and adaptive codes “waiting in the wings” ready to be utilized in case of environmental changes- many just a frame shift away.
Frame shifting will be found to be a more common mechanism for sudden evolutionary change than previously thought.
Every part of the entire genome of any organism will be found to either be used at some time in the organisms life, or be of future use.  There are no unusable “Leftovers”.
No adequate explanation other than design will ever be found for the origin of life’s most basic components - i.e. protein synthesis, cell division, sexual reproduction, etc.

Universally:
Because the earth, and the solar system were specifically designed for life, no life or signs of previous life will be found on any other planets within our field of exploration.

Ah, that was some good T.A.R.D right there.

So Daniel, find any  
Quote
Mathematical patterns not explainable by the current theory will be found when comparing sequences of different organisms.

yes?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2008,17:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 15 2008,22:26)
I've read through all your comments and I must say that none of you have tried to answer my question save Louis, who provided numerous links to abiogenesis papers which, I'm sure, amount to a bunch of head scratching by the best and brightest.  (Note to Louis:  Don't bother telling me when they're close (they're not now).  Let me know when they've figured it out.)

Now, let me say this, although you all have turned this into an abiogenesis argument, it doesn't have to be.  You see, I'm predicting that man will never be able to chart a detailed course for the origin of any of life's systems.  It's not just OOL, it's OOA (origin of anything).

The beauty of my prediction is that it doesn't depend on my knowledge of science, it depends on yours - all of you.  I'm predicting, not only that you don't know how any of life's systems came about, but that you never will!

It seems you'd all be chomping at the bit to prove me wrong by citing one of the trillions of life's systems for which a detailed evolutionary pathway has been found, but for some reason all I get are supposedly smart people denigrating me for my lack of knowledge.

Evotards?  Maybe.

PS.  JohnW, I'm not conceding a possible chemical pathway: I'm saying there is none.  The mere fact that the best chemists among us cannot find any possible chemical pathways for OOL, nor any possible biochemical pathways for OOA, speaks volumes about the "impossibility" of natural origins.

Wow you read all those books and papers and the associated references in one night? Impressive. Truly amazing research Danny.

Rather than get stuck in an endless loop of generalities, let's take one simple chemical issue: the origin of homochirality. Do you think that none of the best chemists have found possible natural pathways for the origin of homochiral biologically significant monomers?

Stick with this one simple issue, then we can move on to others.

Louis

Edited for teh gramer. And also to add my profound thanks for an uncensored "f***ing" upthread. Bravo Didymos!

--------------
Bye.

  
  19153 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (639) < ... 284 285 286 287 288 [289] 290 291 292 293 294 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]