RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Molecular motors = intelligent design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2005,21:18   

"Molecular motors abound in the cell. Myosin motors power muscle contraction, kinesin motors move vesicles from one end of the cell to the other, and the ribosome processes along RNA."

"...all three types of rotary motor contain a central, ion-binding rotor ring that is embedded in the respective coupling membrane of the cell."

STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY:
Nature's Rotary Electromotors
Wolfgang Junge and Nathan Nelson
Science 29 April 2005: 642-644

Structure of the Rotor of the V-Type Na+-ATPase from Enterococcus hirae
Takeshi Murata, Ichiro Yamato, Yoshimi Kakinuma, Andrew G. W. Leslie, and John E. Walker
Science 29 April 2005: 654-659

Structure of the Rotor Ring of F-Type Na+-ATPase from Ilyobacter tartaricus
Thomas Meier, Patrick Polzer, Kay Diederichs, Wolfram Welte, and Peter Dimroth
Science 29 April 2005: 659-662

These molecular motors contain multiple structures and multiple processes integrated together and organized in such a way that the structures and processes not only support each other, they support the overall function of the motor.
    These molecular motors cannot be explained by any combination of random, unguided, or accidental processes and have clear and inescapable purpose. And purpose requires intent. To assemble these molecular motors requires insight, and insight requires intelligence.
   Their existence is prima facie evidence of intelligent input into living systems. If anyone believes that these systems can arise without intelligent input I would be interested in hearing alternative explanations.
http://www.charliewagner.com
http://enigma.charliewagner.com

   
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2005,23:38   

*sigh*

so with each new discovery, will you again proclaim:  goddidit! while providing no evidence, and ignoring all of the similar things that have come before, that are explained quite well by evolution?

you will have a busy but very unproductive life.

for anyone who cares, the same argument was made about flagella, and those are quite easily explained by evolutionary theory; pick a study:

http://www.google.com/custom?....ins.org

You will never win this challenge you have set up for yourself, Charlie.  you will just keep pushing the goalposts farther back for yourself.

bye.

  
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2005,10:49   

You know, Mr. Wagner, I'm thrilled that you are fascinated by molecular motors. I am too, and that's why I studied science. Unfortunately, you rush down the divine design path as if it is the only path you see. In your zeal to exalt God out of sheer amazement at the ingenuity of chemotaxis and flagellar rotation you have forgotten (or ignored) that well understood laws of nature exist. You favor the notion that God designed these processes without evidence! The Bible doesn't talk about flagella either! So where does this conclusion come from?

Your belief in religion surely plays a major part in your conclusions and I applaud you for it. I suspect you see reason to exalt God for just about any natural process. Hey, if your belief in God causes you to see Him everywhere then you are surely satisfied with this and you are of course welcome to it.
Just don't teach it in science class; teach it in religion class.

  
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2005,13:28   

John Walker, who you cite, was one of my undergraduate supervisors at Cambridge. His current web page is here.

Please write to him and ask him if he thinks these motors are the product of intelligent design, and report back here. Thanks.

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2005,19:37   

Andy,
  I sent the following e-mail to Dr. Walker:

---------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Dr Walker,
  I read your paper in the recent issue os "Science" which I cite below. After reading your paper and the two others I made the following comment:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------

"Molecular motors abound in the cell. Myosin motors power muscle contraction, kinesin motors move vesicles from one end of the cell to the other, and the ribosome processes along RNA."

"...all three types of rotary motor contain a central, ion-binding rotor ring that is embedded in the respective coupling membrane of the cell."

STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY:
Nature's Rotary Electromotors
Wolfgang Junge and Nathan Nelson
Science 29 April 2005: 642-644

Structure of the Rotor of the V-Type Na+-ATPase from Enterococcus hirae
Takeshi Murata, Ichiro Yamato, Yoshimi Kakinuma, Andrew G. W. Leslie, and John E. Walker
Science 29 April 2005: 654-659

Structure of the Rotor Ring of F-Type Na+-ATPase from Ilyobacter tartaricus
Thomas Meier, Patrick Polzer, Kay Diederichs, Wolfram Welte, and Peter Dimroth
Science 29 April 2005: 659-662

These molecular motors contain multiple structures and multiple processes integrated together and organized in such a way that the structures and processes not only support each other, they support the overall function of the motor.
  These molecular motors cannot be explained by any combination of random, unguided, or accidental processes and have clear and inescapable purpose. And purpose requires intent. To assemble these molecular motors requires insight, and insight requires intelligence.
 Their existence is prima facie evidence of intelligent input into living systems. If anyone believes that these systems can arise without intelligent input I would be interested in hearing alternative explanations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------
My comment was responded to by Andy Groves:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------
John Walker, who you cite, was one of my undergraduate supervisors at Cambridge. His current web page is here <http://www.mrc-dunn.cam.ac.uk/research/walker.html>.

Please write to him and ask him if he thinks these motors are the product of intelligent design, and report back here. Thanks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------
  I would be interested to know your opinion of my claim that these molecular motors are prima facie evidence of intelligent input into living systems and my further claim that they cannot be explained by any combination of random, unguided or accidental processes. Where do you think they came from?

Regards,
Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com
http://enigma.charliewagner.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

I'll post his reply (if any) here when received.

   
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2005,06:37   

Dr. Walker replies:
Quote

Dear Mr Wagner,

I do not accept your unsubstantiated opinions and claims about the  origin of molecular machines. A much more credible view, supported by  scientific knowledge and evidence, is that they arose by evolution.

Yours sincerely

John Walker


This is the usual reply that I often get from people.
"It's evolution...next question."

   
Sandor



Posts: 2
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2005,07:28   

Quote

Dear Mr Wagner,

I do not accept your unsubstantiated opinions and claims about the  origin of molecular machines. A much more credible view, supported by  scientific knowledge and evidence, is that they arose by evolution.

Yours sincerely

John Walker


Sounds to me like a fitting reply to CW's opinions and claims below.

Quote
(CW)
[...] These molecular motors cannot be explained by any combination of random, unguided, or accidental processes and have clear and inescapable purpose. And purpose requires intent. To assemble these molecular motors requires insight, and [thus] intelligence.
Their existence is prima facie evidence of intelligent input into living systems. [...]

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2005,08:03   

Sandor wrote:
Quote

Sounds to me like a fitting reply to CW's opinions and claims below.


On the contrary, it was a less than satisying reply.
First of all, I don't know what he means by "evolution" and he doesn't explain it. Intelligent design is perfectly compatible with evolution, so simply saying that these entities "evolved" means nothing. What mechanism does he propose? He doesn't say.
    The fact that there are at least 5 different types of these "motors" clearly demonstrates that they have changed over time and probably had a common origin. So, they "evolved". But was it by a darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection or was it by some other mechanism, perhaps one that required intelligent input? Walker doesn't address this question at all.
    I know he's a busy man with more to concern him than my silly questions, but I interpreted his reply as a "brush off". I'm familiar with this kind off reply, I get it often. The first time was when I asked Isaac Asimov about flying saucers, He wrote back to me that anyone who believed in flying saucers was a moron. End of conversation.

   
Sandor



Posts: 2
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2005,09:43   

Quote
CW Wrote
The fact that there are at least 5 different types of these "motors" clearly demonstrates that they have changed over time and probably had a common origin.


I must concede that I have no knowledge on this particular subject. Would you care to explain why the likelyhood of some of these different types of motors to have evolved independently is so small? Is this a conclusion that can be inferred from the scientific text you quote and (I presume) studied thoroughly?

But this is all tangential to the real issue: An evolutionary path is assumed based on the fact that evolutionary processes have proven to be the most viable explanation for other organic structures to arise. It's up to you to provide a testable hypothesis from which can be deduced possible falsifications before you can expect to be taken seriously in the scientific field.

But instead of doing something constructive, you wait until someone else has done the hard work, and use their findings - which invariably raise new questions (how beautiful is the nature of science) - and, as some kind of leech, you attach yourself to these new area's of scientific interest and say: "you see? because we don't know how evolution could have produced it, it might as well have been designed!".

You are no contribution to the scientific community, in fact, I see your attitude towards science as quite disturbing.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2005,20:28   

what he is saying, Charles, is that your opinions bear so little weight, both of logic and evidence, that they don't warrant more than a standard response.

again, seems appropriate to me.

besides which, he did answer the question posed, which was whether he thought ID was involved or not.

case closed.

  
AndyG



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 19 2005,15:12   

Dr Walker displays exactly the sort of closed minded naturalistic viewpoint that....errrrr..... won him a Nobel Prize   :0

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 20 2005,14:37   

well, those nobel laureats and the folks who vote for them are all materialists, so what do you expect?

;)

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2005,15:34   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 04 2005,23:38)
so with each new discovery, will you again proclaim:  goddidit! while providing no evidence....

While I agree -- and will probably repeat past arguments -- I don't think its fair to say there is "no evidence." They have evidence -- just misinterpreted evidence.

IDers do say that many features of our own machines have  some analog in animal bodies, rowing oars -- dolphin flippers, seeds with sails -- sailing ships, birds with wings -- airplanes. In the cell: there are computer-like languages and their decoding systems, memory banks of molecular  information storage and retrieval in DNA/RNA, control systems regulating robotic assembly of parts and components, error fail-safe and proof-reading, prefabrication and modular construction.... etc. etc..

There is a deep feeling of deja-vu here. We are seeing our own machines invented before we knew how to make them.

Human intelligence and evolution (or designer) do seem to be producing similar inventions. I think its fair to say these parallels point to something similar.

Where I part with IDers is in the assumption of what is similar.

I think -- more because I read William Calvin, not because I'm such an original thinker -- that this similarity happens because evolutionary algorithms are working in our own brains:

http://williamcalvin.com/
Cerebral Circuits for Creativity:  Bootstrapping Coherence using a Darwin Machine

But IDers assume intelligence itself is something outside the natural -- something supernatural -- and nothing natural can invent, produce information or whatever else they wish to share with God alone.

Now here's a question: If we one day do invent a fully "conscious" feeling, creative A.I. -- a robot that can fool us into thinking it's human -- would that falsify ID theory?

Does ID depend on intelligence being something supernatural? If  not, then there is not necessarily a fight between evolution and ID -- ID would simply be too overly broad and useless as it would encompass what it wishes to destroy.

If ID does need intelligence to be supernatural -- then would that mean ID is a falsifiable theory? We  falsify it be creating an  A.I. that's inventive and human like?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2005,16:09   

normdoering,

Re "Does ID depend on intelligence being something supernatural? If  not, then there is not necessarily a fight between evolution and ID"

Well, the gene pool of a species has at least two of the attributes we associate with intelligence (the abilities to experiment and to "remember" previous results). So without a clear definition of "intelligence", regular evolution theory logically has as much claim to the label "I.D." as does the deliberately engineered model of life that the I.D. people are implying.

Henry

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2005,17:21   

Quote (Henry J @ July 12 2005,16:09)
... the gene pool of a species has at least two of the attributes we associate with intelligence (the abilities to experiment and to "remember" previous results).

But are those attributes enough? I don't think the DNA/RNA system with ribosomes and all is a system that has other  human attributes, like emotion, pre-visualizing, intension...

And as far as remembering -- doesn't evolution only remember it's successes and forget its dead failures leading it to repeat mistakes -- killer childhood diseases and children's cancer among them.

Humans and artificial neural nets can remember something of both success and failure.

Quote
So without a clear definition of "intelligence", regular evolution theory logically has as much claim to the label "I.D." as does the deliberately engineered model of life that the I.D. people are implying.


That's what we need -- a clear definition of "intelligence."

Any ID out there got one?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2005,17:45   

Re "doesn't evolution only remember it's successes and forget its dead failures"

Yup, so I gather from what I've read on the subject.

Re "I don't think the DNA/RNA system with ribosomes and all is a system that has other  human attributes, like emotion, pre-visualizing, intension..."

Agreed. But I don't know of any evidence that the "design" of living things shows signs of those things having been used by the "designer". So where's that leave us?

Henry

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 12 2005,18:46   

Quote (Henry J @ July 12 2005,17:45)
So where's that leave us?

Forever waiting for the IDers to define what they mean by intelligence -- and for that matter -- what do they mean by design?

Anyone know if Dembski or Behe ever addressed those questions?

  
cewagner



Posts: 41
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 18 2005,09:00   

Normdoering wrote:

Quote

We are seeing our own machines invented before we knew how to make them.
Human intelligence and evolution (or designer) do seem to be producing similar inventions. I think its fair to say these parallels point to something similar.


That, sir, is one of the most brilliant and insightful comments I have seen. It is an observation of profound significance.



Quote

But IDers assume intelligence itself is something outside the natural -- something supernatural -- and nothing natural can invent, produce information or whatever else they wish to share with God alone.


Not all IDERS.
Some, like myself, believe that there may be intelligences far above ours that comfortably fit into the natural world and have a scientific explanation. I see no need to invoke a supernatural entity when we haven't ruled out unknown natural entities.

Quote

Now here's a question: If we one day do invent a fully "conscious" feeling, creative A.I. -- a robot that can fool us into thinking it's human -- would that falsify ID theory?



I don't know what you mean by "ID theory". There is a range of intelligences and they can interact with each other. To me, ID theory simply means that we are the product of a greater intelligence than our own, not of a supernatural intelligence. In fact, there may not be any such thing as "supernatural" because as soon as something is discovered, it immediately becomes part of the natural world.
Quote

Does ID depend on intelligence being something supernatural?

Not by my definition. I am an atheist/agnostic IDer.


Quote

That's what we need -- a clear definition of "intelligence."

Any ID out there got one?


Sure. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. The red rocks of Sedona are not intelligent because they have no ability to affect their own destiny or solve problems related to their surroundings. On the other hand, living organisms respond to their environment and take steps to modify it. This can occur on a whole range of levels from the simplest phototropism to the most complex machine-building. There is absolutely no reason to think that human intelligence is the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe.

   
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 22 2005,16:06   

So where did the 'intelligence far above ours' come from and why can that be scientifically explained when ID by definition claims that all within nature cannot be scientifically explained?
Thanks beforehand for a clear explanation.
Also, who is saying human intelligence is the 'pinnacle in the universe'? And what does quantifying human intelligence have to do with the validity of evolution or ID? If human intelligence is not the pinnacle, what does that say about any of this?
Please elaborate, thanks,

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2005,03:42   

Quote (cewagner @ July 18 2005,09<!--emo&:0)
Quote

We are seeing our own machines invented before we knew how to make them.
Human intelligence and evolution (or designer) do seem to be producing similar inventions. I think its fair to say these parallels point to something similar.


That, sir, is one of the most brilliant and insightful comments I have seen. It is an observation of profound significance.


No, it's not. It's the starting point for ID and William Paley saw it over a century ago before Darwin wrote "Origin of Species."

Quote

Not all IDERS.
Some, like myself, believe that there may be intelligences far above ours that comfortably fit into the natural world and have a scientific explanation. I see no need to invoke a supernatural entity when we haven't ruled out unknown natural entities.


I'm not talking about an intelligence "far above" ours. I'm thinking of the kind of intelligent agency that Marvin Minsky wrote about in "The Society of Mind."

http://www.amazon.com/exec....=glance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_Mind_theory
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/m/mrvnlmns.htm

"What magical trick makes us intelligent? The trick is that there is no trick. The power of intelligence stems from our vast diversity, not from any single, perfect principle." - Marvin Minsky, The Society of Mind, page 308

Quote

To me, ID theory simply means that we are the product of a greater intelligence than our own, not of a supernatural intelligence. In fact, there may not be any such thing as "supernatural" because as soon as something is discovered, it immediately becomes part of the natural world.


If you're thinking of intelligences in terms of greater and lesser, then  you're way off track and very niave about intelligence.

I'm thinking of intelligence as a far more multi-dimentional phenomena where incredibly stupid things can still be smarter in some ways than us -- like computers. They add numbers faster than I can, these days they might have more memory than I do and with the right sorts of of software they do things I can't -- but they are stupid because they lack other dimensions of intelligence.

Quote

Sure. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems. The red rocks of Sedona are not intelligent because they have no ability to affect their own destiny or solve problems related to their surroundings. On the other hand, living organisms respond to their environment and take steps to modify it. This can occur on a whole range of levels from the simplest phototropism to the most complex machine-building. There is absolutely no reason to think that human intelligence is the pinnacle of intelligence in the universe.


And what problem is "evolution" solving? It's just an algorithm, a biological and mathematical principal. Do algorithms have problems?

To have a problem you first need desire, need, wants.

Do algorithms have desires?

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2005,08:01   

The substanceof molecular motors or evolution falsified

Four elements O,N,C,H are considered essential to all life forms on earth. Certainly c12 or carbon twelve amounts to 98% of all life giving carbon. In fact the only difference between a number of non-organic molecules with the same atoms is the way they are combined and spacially oriented. Which causes one to wonder at what point did life enter in?

System Definition:

A system may be defined as a group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole. Complex will be distinguished from ordered though not mutually exclusive by the presence of sensible information content most commonly in the form of sequences or codes that can be and are readily understood to convey actionable messages or signals.

At the atomic level every living cell depends on a physical combination of the elements C,N,O, H in building molecules and assemblies of molecules to carry out the tasks that define life from non-life.

A living cell is a conjunction of these four elements at the atomic level in many special physical arrangements which make life possible with the addition of properly directed energy and information based codes and sequences.

A living cell is then a system as defined above whose components at the atomistic level are the operative "elements".

Life at the cell level is irreducibly complex because one cannot remove any of the subsystems/elements C,N,O,H where a subsystem is the entire collection of atoms of a particular type and still have a functioning cell capable of meeting the life process of self replication.

In any extant life form from abiogenesis plus one genetic change to life at present there is no substitute atom which can be used instead of any of the four listed and have replication proceed, stay alive whether the C, the N, the O or the H cell component sets comprising a sub-sysytem.

The cell is then irreducibly complex because none of the four may be removed and the cell remain alive and capable of replication. Neither can the cell be accounted for by gradual steps or changes in which any one of the subsystems is absent in a prior state of evolution and alive capable of replication and capable of evolving into a state where all four subsystems are present and functioning in replicative processes.

Evolution is thus falsified by its own definition of same for surely Darwin himself stated that if any complex "entity" should be shown as impossible to arise by small incremental steps by natual selection and mutation his theory would be falsified. Certainly we can define any and all organs and entities of being made of cells and cells of molecules and molecules of atoms. Thus the chosen level of examination and system definition are logically sound in the context of Darwin's statement.

Since the cell is IC and cannot be accounted for by any probable or demonstrable process that is abiogenesis has not ever been demonstrated or made imaginatively probabilistic producing an entity of replication in any sense that would ever give rise to the cell we conclude the cell must have been designed; the cell has been IDed.

QED

  
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2005,08:56   

evopeach:
Your hilarious essay proves your ignorance beyond a shadow of a doubt and can easily be utterly reduced to ruins by explaining some VERY basic biology and chemistry.

Indeed, O, N, C and H (as well as Ca, Mg, S, P, K) are essential elements for life, but the cell NEVER functions using single atoms, nor does the cell EVER build molecules from single atoms. The cell ALWAYS starts with molecules. Therefore to reduce cell function to, as you say, "the atomistic level" is utterly meaningless.

You also have no notion of what a chemical bond is and how a chemical bond between two or more atoms gives the resulting molecule totally new chemical and physical properties. For example: Four C atoms and ten H atoms can be bonded in several ways including the n-butane molecule and the 2-methylpropane molecule. They contain the same number of C and H atoms and yet have drastically different chemical properties. So once again, your attempt to reduce cell function to "the atomistic level" is utterly meaningless.

Your definition of C, N, H, and O as being "subsystems" is laughable. How can an element be a subsystem if it is an element? You've reduced organic molecules like DNA, RNA and proteins having definite mass, structure and property to a "collection of atoms" when in fact the properties of these molecules, are galaxies away from the properties of the individual atoms they are made up of.

You speak of complexity and then meaninglessly reduce life to "a collection of atoms" for the purposes of your logical trapeze act. How obtuse.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2005,10:52   

You make my point exquisitely, evolutionists never argue from substance and logic just personal attacks and diatribes.

If you had read the first paragraph with you may have noticed that I posed the question  since the same atoms arranged chemically and spacially different give rise to quite different molecules just when does life enter into the transformation and how?

There is nothing wrong with defining the atoms of each type of element as sub-systems since the properties that are expressed in chemical bonding do arise from the structure of the bonding atoms and the type of bonding occurring.

The point is the absolute uniqueness of the particular atoms especially carbon that make life as we know and observe it. There is no known life form that is not carbon based.

Further if one considers molecules as the lowest level of componentry in the living cell that is rather arbitrary since the molecules are themselves made of the atoms of the several elements.

When you can present a logical line of reasoning rather than a diatribe of insults  you will perhaps command my attention.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2005,19:06   

Doesn't the question of "what's a subsystem" sort of depend on what aspect is being analyzed at the time?

Henry

  
TimChase



Posts: 5
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2005,17:25   

There is a good analysis of myosin and how it works (nothing particularly mysterious, I might add) at:


pharyngula.org - Evolving Motors

Moreover, both myosin and kinesin are the subjects of on-going phylogenetic analyses:

Kinesin Tree

Motor Diversity - Phylogenetic Analysis - Myosin

Evopeach -- scientists can sometimes strike people as somewhat abrasive, perhaps more so when interacting with someone who is so ignorant that they believe that they are brilliant, and that their opinions should carry as much weight as someone who has had a great deal of education and experience in a field that they themselves barely know.  However, if the average citizen takes this to be some form of unmitigated arrogance, then I believe such citizens will deserve the world that they get for as long as it lasts.

-- Timothy Chase,
  novice in the realm of Molecular Biology

   
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2005,07:46   

Tim and Shaun et al

For the record I have two engineering degrees which included classes in Chemistry, Physical Chemistry, Thermodynamics, 35 hours of advanced physics, twenty hours of advanced math (statistics, information theory, pertubation analysis,OR and SYSTEMS ENGINEERING).

It amazes me that people believe a degree in paleontology (bone polishers), geology (rock hounds) and biology actuall belief themselves in some way to be intellectually superior to other technical discliplines. I took one course in Biology every engineer did it was the easiest way to get some grade points. I would have taken another one but it was always filled up with football players and other jocks trying to do the same.

When confronted with an altogether novel analysis of a problematic issue wirehead one subject morons like this group always resort to emotional diatribes and never to logical argument.

If I were a member of a group who believed that helium gas became the human brain by random processes undirected and unplanned and could not offer a scintilla of demonstrable evidence for such I would be looking for a brain transplant.

  
HPLC_Sean



Posts: 12
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,10:36   

evopeach,
It is really fascinating to hear you spew about emotional diatribes and personal attacks when you say something as two-faced as this:

Quote
"It amazes me that people believe a degree in paleontology (bone polishers), geology (rock hounds) and biology actuall belief themselves in some way to be intellectually superior to other technical discliplines. I took one course in Biology every engineer did it was the easiest way to get some grade points. I would have taken another one but it was always filled up with football players and other jocks trying to do the same."


No one here is attempting to impose their mental superiority on you; that's your own inferiority complex kicking in. Most of us are compassionate people looking to understand what you're trying to say or help you clear up your confusion. Really, that's all we're trying to do for you, evopeach, but all you want to do is insult people, cheaply I might add.
BTW: Please let me know which bridges you've helped build or which airplanes you've helped design because I want to stay far far away from them. THAT was an insult.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2005,11:05   

HPLC,

Yes all you want to do is help the poor, ignorant, uneducated, redneck, fundamentalist Evopeach and all those who might take the view of IDers or Creationists or IC to see the true light of the day through the perfected lens of Darwinism. Urp!!!!!!!!

I have seen your teams posts and such for thirty years ,your vicious invective filled personal attacks on people of intellect, decency and conviction based on well reasoned analysis of hard facts. Now is not the time to claim some moral high ground while attempting to  shut the door to the freedom of speech and close down the marketplace of ideas in the interest of grant money, tenure and text book royalties or worse, pure egotism.

I think this quote from the Scopes trial says it all.

The following statement of Dr. E.N. Reinke, Professor of Biology in Vanderbilt University, is repeatedly quoted in briefs of counsel for the defense:

"The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology and its kindred sciences. To deny the teacher of biology the use of this most fundamental generalization of his science would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach astronomy without the law of gravitation or physics without assuming the existence of the ether."

Which two of those two referenced theories are no longer valid in their own disclipline and no longer taught as the best explanation of the natural universe being overturned in their entirety.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,05:16   

Was there by necessity an irreducibly complex living entity at the beginning of life?

Is there anything unneeded in the organism to be alive?

No? Then its irreducably complex and it must be the product of design because by definition any precursor absent that extra was not alive.

Yes? Discard that extra part ... and repeat step one.. absolutely one will reach a state of irreducible complexity


For instance the first replicator or life form would likely have had no extra parts... thus it is irreducibly complex and alive while any previous step is not alive, can
not by evolutionary means reach stage two.

Is was designed.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,11:53   

Evo,

Unfortunately your logic breaks down after working through the semantics.  Irreducible complexity is a false notion.  Evolution doesn't always arrive at a system by adding things to simpler things.  Sometimes complex things can get simpler.  But, that complex predecessor did not have to be irreducibly complex.  It could've arisen from a series of small incremental increases via a straightforward pathway.  Your "irreducibly complex" system could just be in a "local minimum" of complexity.  But, that does not mean that it wasn't the result of small incremental changes.

You are also being held back by your own definition of life.  At one point in abiogenisis, there were chemical chain reactions that repeated themselves (this isn't an uncommon feature in many chemical reactions).  At what point these repeating reactions became "life" is a subjective decision.  Don't get bogged down in the semantics.  (Think of the similar fetus/embyro definitions relating to abortion.  They are both extremely difficult to absolutely define.)

Quote
For instance the first replicator or life form would likely have had no extra parts... thus it is irreducibly complex and alive while any previous step is not alive, can
not by evolutionary means reach stage two.


What if the "first replicator of life" wasn't very far from the chemicals that are already found in nature?  And what if the most "irreducibly complex" replicator was only a small probability away from a natural chemical replicator?  The details, of course, aren't well understood.  But we cannot simply throw our hands up in the air and turn to supernatural causes just because we don't understand at the moment.  The universe is not limited by our lack of imagination.  There is alot of science to be done in the areas of abiogenisis.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,12:13   

Dan If a frog had wings he would not bump his butt on the ground... so what.

There has not been after 100 years of effort by your best people a single demonstration of abiogenesis that remotely resembles the situation you describe and you know it.

Why else has Crick, Hoyle, Morowitz and many many others including Shapiro gave up on abiogenesis years ago and started panspermia and other science fiction.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,13:01   

Evo,

I would like to know what you think of what I said about Irreducible Complexity.  Because you seem to be hanging alot of what you say on it's explanatory power.  Is what I said wrong?  If so, why?

"Our best people"...  Are you just making this stuff up as you go?  Only a few curious scientists have been studying abiogenisis.  Most of the efforts in the biological disciplines are directed at understanding the current situation, not primordial happenings.  Things like protein pathways, cycles, and regulation in our living cells are difficult enough to keep biologists busy for over 100 more years, too.  If your argument is that "scientists have tried and failed, clearly supernatural means are the cause of life."  It surely is a weak one.

A common theme is for creationists to point out a few examples of scientists that have given up/changed fields/converted as proof that the other hundreds of thousands of scientists are wasting their time.  I'm not suprised you chose that well worn path as well.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,03:18   

The literate and the bookshelves are replete with hundreds of papers and chronicles on the millions spent on origin of life experiments.

Do you consider Kornfield, Crick, Hoyle, Cairne-Smith, Chaisson,Fox, Miller, Prigorine and a plethora of otheres many Noble prize winners for their research in origin of life theories as just run of the mill odd balls?

See this is what I mean by intellectual dishonesty by evos.. rewriting history in the case of abject failure absolutely in the face of empirical and documented facts then having the unmitigated gaul to claim it never happened and to the small degree that it did it was and is unimportant. You people have a disconnect from reality.

Yes abject failure after millions of dollars and 100 years of effort with every mathmatical calculation made by your own camp admitting to near statistical impossibility for the reational world would indicate one is on a worthless, impossible and unmeaningful quest.

I know of no way to falsify any theory like evolution because no result of any kind could ever dissuade evos its so plastic and undefinable circular tautalogical and soft. If events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities have zero effect on the theory then its simply a mythology.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,10:22   

Evo,

I notice that you are prone to dodging the tough questions.  I asked you very specifically about the faulty logic I pointed out concerning irreducible complexity.  Instead you addressed the weak/pointless argument of who has been studying abiogenisis and for how long.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I never called the people that are working on abiogenisis oddballs.  I merely stated that it is not the main thrust of biology, as there is plenty of other work to be done.  The "bookshelves" of papers concerning origin experiments pale in comparison to the libraries of papers concerning all else in biology.  I stand by the statement that few scientists are working on abiogenisis.  And when I say that I'm talking about percentages concerning overall biologists.

However, the time is ripe for new exciting developments in abiogenisis and other previously very difficult experiments in analytical chemistry and biology.  As computational speeds increase and new algorithms are developed the possibilities for breakthroughs concerning protien development, pharmacueticals, and, yes, even abiogenisis are increasing.  Many of my fellow graduate students in Chemistry and Biology are working on excitingly developing exactly these things.  I'm sure with your engineering degree you can understand the importance of numerical analysis of complex systems.

I had a good laugh at your implication that I've rewritten history.

Here is a link to a website that you can peruse and learn about the falsifiability of the theory of evolution. It also gives a great primer on how science works in general.
Common Descent

Please read it and feel free to point out any incorrect ideas, data, results, etc.  It's a great place to start looking for the correct answers to the misconceptions you are harboring.


Quote
...events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities...

Unfortunately, just because you are convinced that things are impossible does not mean that it is so.  I would love to hear about specific things that you find impossible.  Perhaps I can point you in the correct direction to seek the solutions to the questions you have.

-Dan

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:22   

One hundred days ago I started the post on Intellectual Honesty based on the book by Shapiro wherein he showed the utter failure of every theory of how life could have started  and thus made evolution even possible in the first place. Unless one can demonstrate that life started there is no reason to believe the evolutionary story because it has no basis in fact, no underpinnnings... it is just a troubled at best, highly implausible just so story which flies in the face of any approach people in any industry, task or activity take to real accomplishment.. no one would ever use random processes to accomplish their lifes work.

A significant number of people have discovered the absolute fruitlessness of even engaging in this Quixotic venture true enough .. why .. because its already proven to be absolutely barren of  any believable chance of success. So yes there are fewer people engaged in the field because the hordes of the past were utter failures, money for fairy tale adventures is scarce these days.

As to impossibilities you might read Herbert Yockey, Morowitz, Shapiro, Denton, Zuckercandl,Crick,Hoyle,Grasse, Schutzenburger, Eden. Wouse,Monod; but the real problem is you're just committed, no matter what, to your theory.

In statistics any probability that is less likely that 10**-50 will never occur .. its impossible .. I believe mathmaticians and scientists are in agreement there.

Yet the chance of life starting and many aspects of early evolutionary event are far less likely accoring to the authors listed.

At least I attribute my theories to processes that occurred once, never to be repeated and were supernatural in origin and documented as such.

Once that occurs I don't need natural law miracles to understand the universe and its operations like you do.

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,11:43   

Quote
At least I attribute my theories to processes that occurred once, never to be repeated and were supernatural in origin and documented as such.

Once that occurs I don't need natural law miracles to understand the universe and its operations like you do.


Food for thought:

A Universal Philosophical Refutation

A philosopher once had the following dream:

First Aristotle appeared, and the philosopher said to him, "Could you give me a fifteen-minute capsule sketch of your entire philosophy?" To the philosopher's surprise, Aristotle gave him an excellent exposition in which he compressed an enormous amount of material into a mere fifteen minutes. But then the philosopher raised a certain objection which Aristotle couldn't answer. Confounded, Aristotle disappeared.

Then Plato appeared. The same thing happened again, and the philosophers' objection to Plato was the same as his objection to Aristotle. Plato also couldn't answer it and disappeared.

Then all the famous philosophers of history appeared one-by-one and our philosopher refuted every one with the same objection.

After the last philosopher vanished, our philosopher said to himself, "I know I'm asleep and dreaming all this. Yet I've found a universal refutation for all philosophical systems! Tomorrow when I wake up, I will probably have forgotten it, and the world will really miss something!" With an iron effort, the philosopher forced himself to wake up, rush over to his desk, and write down his universal refutation. Then he jumped back into bed with a sigh of relief.

The next morning when he awoke, he went over to the desk to see what he had written. It was, "That's what you say."

(Raymond Smullyan, 5000 B.C. and Other Philosophical Fantasies. St. Martin's Press, 1983)

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,12:05   

I couldn't agree more so we have the choice of believeing either the thoughts , actions, words and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth or those of Charles Darwin a man who was known to be a diagnosed manic depressive whose episodes were so severe tha he could not communicate with anyone in his familty or circle of friends for weeks on end.

to Christ,A person who has convinced some billion or more people in two thousand years to commit themselves to His philosophy of selflessness, compassion and humility in return for eternal rewards and relationship with Him.

Or to Darwin whose advocates promote mans centrality in the universe, the denial of eternal matters, deny God as a reality, power, survival of the fittest, claw and tooth and the abolition of the ignorant cult of Christians from any participation in public policy.

I know who I believe and I feel really good about it.

  
Pastor Bentonit



Posts: 16
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,12:37   

Quote
In statistics any probability that is less likely that 10**-50 will never occur .. its impossible .. I believe mathmaticians and scientists are in agreement there.


Really impossible?

Also, I think we could safely agree that the probability of life occurring (at least on Earth, as far as we know) is rather greater than 10**-50...more in the line of...1 (irrespective of cause)?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,16:06   

What if there are 8*10**67 events of equal probability, exactly one of which is certain to occur? In that case it is certain that an event of probability 8*10**-67 will occur. That sort of undercuts the notion that a 10**-50 probability event can't occur. (Note- 8*10**67 is 52 factorial rounded to 1 digit.)

Henry

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,05:02   

Henry the moron speaks,

An event that is certain to occur will occur. Egads the Genius Henry speaks!!!  Its about on par with the premise of evolution the "the fittest will survive because they are the most fit".

The reason math people and all intelligent people say 10-**50 is an event that will not have occurred over the history of the universe is because the number of possible trials and the rate of trials is insufficient to reach any remote possibility of success in the context of abiogenesis and early stage evolution. Again I won't do your homework the calculations have been donw many times by your own peop[le so read it yourself.

For a 10**50 side unbiased coin the expected number of flips to get the number x is greater than the number of flips performed in 12 billion years... it dubbed as impossible.

If you have an infinite amount of time you might get the chance formation of a so called simple DNA/RNA etc replicator but not in 3 billion years or 12 for that matter.

If you want to base your world view and your lifes work on believeing such... have a party.. just don't claim its a dead certainty and any other explanation is unscientific etc.

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,09:39   

Quote (cogzoid @ Oct. 07 2005,15:22)
Evo,

I notice that you are prone to dodging the tough questions.  I asked you very specifically about the faulty logic I pointed out concerning irreducible complexity.  Instead you addressed the weak/pointless argument of who has been studying abiogenisis and for how long.

Please do not put words in my mouth.  I never called the people that are working on abiogenisis oddballs.  I merely stated that it is not the main thrust of biology, as there is plenty of other work to be done.  The "bookshelves" of papers concerning origin experiments pale in comparison to the libraries of papers concerning all else in biology.  I stand by the statement that few scientists are working on abiogenisis.  And when I say that I'm talking about percentages concerning overall biologists.

However, the time is ripe for new exciting developments in abiogenisis and other previously very difficult experiments in analytical chemistry and biology.  As computational speeds increase and new algorithms are developed the possibilities for breakthroughs concerning protien development, pharmacueticals, and, yes, even abiogenisis are increasing.  Many of my fellow graduate students in Chemistry and Biology are working on excitingly developing exactly these things.  I'm sure with your engineering degree you can understand the importance of numerical analysis of complex systems.

I had a good laugh at your implication that I've rewritten history.

Here is a link to a website that you can peruse and learn about the falsifiability of the theory of evolution. It also gives a great primer on how science works in general.
Common Descent

Please read it and feel free to point out any incorrect ideas, data, results, etc.  It's a great place to start looking for the correct answers to the misconceptions you are harboring.


Quote
...events that occur with probabilities that are clearly indicative of impossibilities...

Unfortunately, just because you are convinced that things are impossible does not mean that it is so.  I would love to hear about specific things that you find impossible.  Perhaps I can point you in the correct direction to seek the solutions to the questions you have.

-Dan

Still waiting...

C'mon Evo, you clearly have the free time to address my issues.

By the way, what does "scientific" mean to you?  This isn't a trap question, just an honest question.

-Dan

  
Henry J



Posts: 4058
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,13:56   

Re "Henry the moron speaks,"

This from the clown who insists that helium - which is formed from the fusion of hydrogen nuclei - could appear before the particles from which it is formed?

A point that btw isn't even critical to his supposed argument - what he presented as if it were an argument would work just as well (or as badly) had he said "hydrogen to..." instead of "helium to...", and wouldn't distract from the intended argument by causing people to talk about the choice of element instead.

Henry

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2005,16:04   

You're exactly right, Henry.  But, I like to think of the Helium discussion Evo makes as representative of his ignorant braggadocio.

-Dan

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,04:56   

Quote
Unless one can demonstrate that life started there is no reason to believe the evolutionary story because it has no basis in fact, no underpinnnings...

Um, life did start.  I think we can be sure of that since we are both alive.

If you meant to say that we need to demonstrate abiogenesis before evolution can make sense, consider this:

I just traveled from New York to Los Angeles and told you about my trip.  But, I never told you about how I got to New York in the first place.  Should you tell me that my story of the trip from NY to LA has no basis and is a bunch of made-up lies and distortions?

Also, perhaps you could tell us how exactly you are coming up with your probabilities?  The weakness that Creationist probability arguments have is that they can't accurately define what the distribution is, so therefore we have no way of actually figuring out how probable the event was or was not.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,11:18   

GCT,

Suppose you said I am in charge of designing all of the classes and training for the student population on the Theory of Intercontinental air travel from which all aeronautics and related activities will preceed.

The you said I just flew in from New York to LA using my new improved non-melting Icarus wings.

NOOOOOOOOOOTTTT

The you said actually I hopped from rock tower to rock tower in incremental steps and the towers were only six feet apart. The I went out and looked and couldn't find any rock towers that were closer than 50000 feet apart.

Then you said all of the intermediate rock towers were destroyed by vicious space pumas since your trip.

NOOOOOTTTTTTTTT


Finally you claimed to have flown in from New York on a jet designed by a team of engineers imposing their intellect and their conscious plans onto inanimate matter to develop a plane, etc.

I looked over the blue prints, the flight simulation studies, the dynamic similitude wind tunnel test results, the flight test recordings and concluded that it was indeed possible and consistent with all human experience to design, plan, test and activate complex pieces of equipment using the intelligent design model since every act of progress ever made by mankind had been done exactly and precisely that way.

Suddenly the great team of scientists from the diceo rouletteo school of chaotic random results academy arrived and immediately tore your scientifice credentails deploma into shreds, branded yoiu a traitor to chaos and took your application for tenure and put it next to the latrine.

Well I think its clear enough.....


Yes a theory which cannot demonstrate the plausibility of its underlying logical imperative does not deserve to be considered as more than a just so fairy tale with more holes in it than Clyde Barrow.

AS to probability...one more time their not creationist numbers the're numbers by evos such as Rhapiro, Fox, Miller, Hoyle, Morowitz and a whole raft of others.

As to distribution I would imagine at the most basic level a uniform equilikely assumption is being made since the entire random mutation theory on point mutations in a string of possible mutable sites is just
that.

Nice try but no bananas

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1365
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,13:50   

Evopeach

Your alternative theory is...

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,00:37   

Evopeach,
My point still holds.

Every example you come up with to counter my story about traveling to LA is about the trip and the likelyhood of my account of how I got to LA, not how I got to NY in the first place.  Can I take it from your inability to counter my argument that you agree that abiogenesis is separate from evolution?

I doubt that all your examples of evos that came up with impossible probabilities are correct.  Support your assertion.  Show me where they came up with those numbers.  Additionally, I would say that even if they did, they are most likely wrong for the same reason that I enumerated above.  Whether a creationist does bad probability or a real scientist does it makes no difference.  Bad calculations are bad calculations no matter who does them.  I'd like to see what they did, however, to see if maybe they could change my mind.  So, let's see the references.

  
evopeach



Posts: 248
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,04:46   

GCT,

No your arguments, all of them, are destroyed by my posts and you change your arguments like every good evo.

You say I came from New York but all I see is you at LAX. You want me to assume you came from New York but you have no ticket that says you were ever in New York, you have no evidence of transitional intermediate stop over cities ( like a Chicago or Atlanta or Dallas piece of memorabilia .. not a pennent or a coke cup.),
you have no luggage with NYC tags or any other evidence.

You draw a map of the USA showing every possible air route from NYC to LA and state that because there are such it proves you took one of them. Most of them land in the gulf of Mexico or Lake Micigan, crash in the desert , etc. but one of them actually makes it to LA though the flight distance exceeds the world supply of jet fuel by 2,000,000 percent since it requires each stop to spin a wheel and randomly go to the indicated city.

You call over five of your compatriots and ask them to tell you about how you all flew together from NYC to LA but they have zero evidence as well.. even though they firmly believe your story.

The logic you propose is that since you flew from NY to LA you obiously were in NYC and thus I am to assume that you were in NYC and even though there is no evidence you ever were in NYC I am to accept that you were and that it doesn't matter how you got there whether from a space ship, a meteor, created there or what.

Actually the possibility your story is correct is much much more likely than the evo story.

  
GCT



Posts: 1001
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,05:18   

Evopeach, if you see me get off the plane that just flew in from New York, you can take it for granted that I was in New York, correct?  But, you would toss all of that out because I haven't told you how I got to New York in the first place?  That's what I'm asking you.  The route that the plane took to get from NY to LA is completely independent of the how and why I was in NY to begin with, is it not?  That's why we can divorce abiogenesis from evolution.  You are still arguing about the trip, not the beginning of the trip.

Let's try another example.  I wake up from an accident and I have amnesia.  I can't account for how I got into this world at all.  I can't remember my parents, where I was born, who I am, etc.  There's no record for me to account for all of that because I have no way to look up anything.  Do I now assume that I don't exist?  That I haven't lived some sort of life up until whatever age I am simply because I can't account for my birth?

  
Swoosh



Posts: 42
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,06:37   

Hmmm.. well, no.  You can assume you are suffering from Intelligent Amnesia.  DNA testing and fingerprint analysis have no weight to prove otherwise.  Besides, most of America believes that those methods are full of holes anyway.

  
rimby



Posts: 15
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,14:41   

It's interesting that if we applied evopeach's "NOOOOOTTTTTTTTT" logic to the Bible, we would have to conclude that it is also a "fairy tale with more holes in it than Clyde Barrow".

  
  50 replies since May 04 2005,21:18 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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