Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::The Bathroom Wall

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:42

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2008,19:14)

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2008,10:09)

Some amino acids existed before life forms were making them. So that catch-22 isn't one.

So your guess is that pre-existing amino acids formed enzymes that would later come in handy in the synthesis of amino acids?

Well, at least you're trying!

You do know that enzymes are highly specific, unique proteins that generally only catalyze one specific chemical reaction - don't you? �They're not really jack-of-all-trade type proteins.

So what selective advantage would there be for these not-yet-functional enzymes under your scenario?

Good gravy, just READ THE BOOK! Danny do you really expect us to type out whole books to satisfy your need to feel important/trollish?

The simple answer to your (straw) question is: modern, highly specific enzymes are not what are proposed. You're looking at a "modern" system and demanding that the "ancient" precursor system was something as complex and specific as that "modern" system. That is the fundamental error you are making. No one, least of all any scientist researching the relevant fields, either claims or expects this to be the case. For example, simple dipeptides can act as catalysts in other reactions. Imidazoles can catalyse the formations of peptides. Enzymes are catalysts, admittedly usually highly specific and complex catalysts, but catalysts nonetheless. If you are interested in systems that can accomplish the very things you seem to desire to know about, read the Rebek and Orgel papers referenced in the other thread.

What selective advantages are there for as yet non-functional "proto-enzymes"? None, nor are there any selection pressures against them BY DEFINITION (if they are a) not maladaptive and b) "cheap" in terms of "cost")! Again, the only reason you are asking questions like this is because you simply don't understand the issues and are touting straw arguments.

As I said above, do you really expect people to spend their valuable time typing out swathes of text and drawing complex chemical diagrams for you when you a) habitually handwave these things away, b) demonstrably don't understand them, and c) routinely refuse to make the basic effort required to understand what you claim you want to? Communication is a two way street, it requires both parties to participate in good faith, and buddy, you ain't doing that.

Louis

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:44

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2008,11:27)

My guess is that earliest life used the amino acids that were already present in the environment, and synthesis of others evolved later.

Henry

So there must be a means of trapping useful amino acids and bringing them inside the cellular membrane for utilization? �How do you propose that was done? �What kept bad stuff out and only let good amino acids in? �It would seem that a more complex system than the one we're trying to explain would be necessary under your scenario - just to bring the building blocks in.

Still, that doesn't address the synthesis of the enzymes.

All of these enzymes would have to be synthesized from those existing, non-synthetic amino acids - since the means of internal synthesis is not in place yet. �How do you propose that came about? �Was there a means of protein synthesis in place before any enzymes were synthesized? �(There would have to be) �How do you explain that?

And what about regulation?

Were these enzymes synthesized willy-nilly with no regulation? �What selective advantage is there for that? �So you'd have to come up with a means of regulation (the accidents will have to exponentially multiply), or these enzymes would either be over-produced or under-produced and the whole system falls apart. �How does that happen? �If I understand regulation correctly (and there's a good chance I don't) it's inherent in the construction of the enzyme, the reaction it catalyzes, and the machinery that synthesizes the enzyme in the first place. �So you have a kind of chicken and egg scenario. �So, explain your guess as to how regulation came about please.

Were other useless enzymes synthesized? �They would really have to be under your scenario. �The cellular machinery would have to randomly encode all manner of different unregulated enzymes in the hope (is there room for hope in your theory?) that some would just happen to stick. �

Of course this would have to happen (the finding the lucky amino acids, their random coding and synthesis, and the sticking part) 20 times for our simple biochemical pathway to evolve. �Pretty lucky eh?

It's a nice try though. �At least you've exceeded the level of detail in "oldmanintheskydidntdoit"!

--------------
"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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:53

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2008,13:44)

those existing, non-synthetic amino acids

What I want to know is where those amino acids already present before life existed came from?

Any ideas Daniel?

I mean, it seems that even if you get all the answers you need you still need to explain that, right?

And Daniel, what use is half an eye?

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:54

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2008,13:44)

It's a nice try though. �At least you've exceeded the level of detail in "oldmanintheskydidntdoit"!

You equivalent is

"Let there be light"

So, on a technical level, oldmanintheskydidntdoit has more information (letters) and so you lose.

Again.

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:55

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 31 2008,11:42)

�

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2008,19:14)

�

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2008,10:09)

Some amino acids existed before life forms were making them. So that catch-22 isn't one.

So your guess is that pre-existing amino acids formed enzymes that would later come in handy in the synthesis of amino acids?

Well, at least you're trying!

You do know that enzymes are highly specific, unique proteins that generally only catalyze one specific chemical reaction - don't you? �They're not really jack-of-all-trade type proteins.

So what selective advantage would there be for these not-yet-functional enzymes under your scenario?

Good gravy, just READ THE BOOK! Danny do you really expect us to type out whole books to satisfy your need to feel important/trollish?

The simple answer to your (straw) question is: modern, highly specific enzymes are not what are proposed. You're looking at a "modern" system and demanding that the "ancient" precursor system was something as complex and specific as that "modern" system. That is the fundamental error you are making. No one, least of all any scientist researching the relevant fields, either claims or expects this to be the case. For example, simple dipeptides can act as catalysts in other reactions. Imidazoles can catalyse the formations of peptides. Enzymes are catalysts, admittedly usually highly specific and complex catalysts, but catalysts nonetheless. If you are interested in systems that can accomplish the very things you seem to desire to know about, read the Rebek and Orgel papers referenced in the other thread.

What selective advantages are there for as yet non-functional "proto-enzymes"? None, nor are there any selection pressures against them BY DEFINITION (if they are a) not maladaptive and b) "cheap" in terms of "cost")! Again, the only reason you are asking questions like this is because you simply don't understand the issues and are touting straw arguments.

As I said above, do you really expect people to spend their valuable time typing out swathes of text and drawing complex chemical diagrams for you when you a) habitually handwave these things away, b) demonstrably don't understand them, and c) routinely refuse to make the basic effort required to understand what you claim you want to? Communication is a two way street, it requires both parties to participate in good faith, and buddy, you ain't doing that.

Louis

I'm not asking how some ancient system came about Louis. �I'm asking how the present, modern E. coli amino acid synthesis system came about. �

Your argument is a strawman.

Start at the present system and work your way back. �What was the immediate precursor? �How did it work and what did it do? �(since it probably didn't synthesize all the amino acids in the present system - or did it?) �Then, what came before that? �Could simple dipeptides or imidazoles actually catalyze the reactions necessary to create a working amino acid synthetic system? �

Give me your best guess as to how the present system came about.

Thanks.

--------------
"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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:56

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2008,13:44)

So you have a kind of chicken and egg scenario.

In your opinion, what is the resolution of the apparent "chicken or egg" paradox?

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,13:57

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 31 2008,13:55)

Start at the present system and work your way back. �What was the immediate precursor? �How did it work and what did it do?

Will you be doing the same for "intelligent design" or "think-poof"?

If you cannot, why is it a problem that "reality based science" cannot?

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,14:00

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

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,14:13

Quote

So there must be a means of trapping useful amino acids and bringing them inside the cellular membrane for utilization? �How do you propose that was done? �What kept bad stuff out and only let good amino acids in?

That's a different set of questions from what we were talking about. I don't personally have a proposal for how the earliest (or current for that matter) life hung on to useful molecules and kept out harmful ones.

Quote

Were other useless enzymes synthesized? �They would really have to be under your scenario. �The cellular machinery would have to randomly encode all manner of different unregulated enzymes in the hope (is there room for hope in your theory?) that some would just happen to stick.

It's not my scenario or my theory; all I can do is paraphrase the bits of the subject that I happen to have read about. I don't know about "all manner", but mutations would produce variations on the proteins already being produced at the time.

Quote

the finding the lucky amino acids,

That presupposes that the 20 amino acids in use are the only ones that would work.

Henry

Henry J

Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,14:18

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2008,12:56)

In your opinion, what is the resolution of the apparent "chicken or egg" paradox?

Colonel Sanders did it.

BWE

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,15:13

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2008,13:58)

Daniel Smith:

Quote

I have no fears of scientific discovery because I find that all of it deepens my faith in an infinitely creative God.

What I take from what I've learned is that His mechanism for getting things done is what evolutionary science has figured out. If you keep busy insisting on telling God how He did things, you're likely not listening to the evidence.

Now, about examples... you ask about a particular process. Nobody who knows what they are talking about claims that science cannot understand things if any part of the natural world remains undocumented, which is essentially what your claims hang upon. This is standard-fare religious antievolution procedure, to ignore those places where good data has been acquired and to insist that places without such good data are somehow fraught with significance. The reason people aren't falling over themselves concerning your argument about E. coli amino acid handling is that it merits no more than a shrug. Somebody with unreasonable doubt insists upon video-tape-level evidence for something that happened over a billion years ago before they'll credit science with having any answers about "life's systems", and the reaction of anyone with a clue is either to move on to something productive or to poke them with a rhetorical stick. The fact that some people chose the stick doesn't validate the argument.

"Men have sought to make a world from their own conception and to draw from their own minds all the material which they employed, but if, instead of doing so, they had consulted experience and observation, they would have the facts and not opinions to reason about, and might have ultimately arrived at the knowledge of the laws which govern the material world."

Francis Bacon

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,15:21

Quote

I know, I know...

You are all brilliant scientific minds - able to master complex arguments and logic - while I'm easily distracted by shiny things.

You are all witty and hilarious - wordsmiths of the highest order - while I am not allowed around sharp objects.

I get it.

you certainly do get it, for you dropped that polished nonsense about nomogenesis and fell back to blithering about our temporary ignorance about sub-cellular biology. without, i might add, resolving your issues. next time, Portia.

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

BWE

Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,15:21

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2008,14:00)

I dunno why but I laughed and laughed and I'm still laughing over this one.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

dogdidit

Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,15:49

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2008,14:18)

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2008,12:56)

In your opinion, what is the resolution of the apparent "chicken or egg" paradox?

Colonel Sanders did it.

The Japanese did it first. oyako don:

mmmm....hungreeee....

--------------
"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

Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Oct. 31 2008,17:49

Quote

I'm not asking how some ancient system came about Louis. �I'm asking how the present, modern E. coli amino acid synthesis system came about.

I know almost nothing about this topic, but at a guess I'd say 'through evolution from an ancient system'.

Daniel, it seems to me that you are attributing far more knowledge to scientists than they themselves are claiming. Do you truly think it reasonable that after a few decades of people studying the origins of life they should be able to answer in great detail every question you throw at them? You seem to think they have god-like powers. By contrast, your explanation has gained no new information or understanding in the last 4000 years or thereabouts.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,11:25

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2008,11:58)

Daniel Smith:

� �

Quote

I have no fears of scientific discovery because I find that all of it deepens my faith in an infinitely creative God.

What I take from what I've learned is that His mechanism for getting things done is what evolutionary science has figured out. If you keep busy insisting on telling God how He did things, you're likely not listening to the evidence.

Now, about examples... you ask about a particular process. Nobody who knows what they are talking about claims that science cannot understand things if any part of the natural world remains undocumented, which is essentially what your claims hang upon. This is standard-fare religious antievolution procedure, to ignore those places where good data has been acquired and to insist that places without such good data are somehow fraught with significance. The reason people aren't falling over themselves concerning your argument about E. coli amino acid handling is that it merits no more than a shrug. Somebody with unreasonable doubt insists upon video-tape-level evidence for something that happened over a billion years ago before they'll credit science with having any answers about "life's systems", and the reaction of anyone with a clue is either to move on to something productive or to poke them with a rhetorical stick. The fact that some people chose the stick doesn't validate the argument.

Wesley, you brought up the Krebs' cycle. �I'm assuming you would call this one of "those places where good data has been acquired"? �I'm not ignoring it - as you claim. �I'm still waiting for an answer from you as to whether the authors of the paper you cited address the synthesis and regulation of the enzymes in their hypothetical pathways. �Or do they pull pre-synthesized, pre-regulated enzymes out of thin air?

Does it ever bother you Wesley that the "part of the natural world [that] remains undocumented" is the nuts and bolts of how evolution works? �Or does that merit "no more than a shrug" also?

You claim I have "unreasonable doubt". �How is doubting a theory that provides no details as to how it actually works "unreasonable"? �What would "reasonable doubt" look like in such a scenario?

You chide me for asking for "video-tape-level evidence for something that happened over a billion years ago" - yet I'm told that the particular system I'm asking about is a "modern" "highly-specific" system, and that no one is proposing that such a "modern" system works like ancient systems. �So which is it? �Is it a modern, highly specific system? (which should be explainable by sciences' apparently time-constrained explanatory powers) �Or is it an ancient, billion-years-old system? �(which I guess, under the time-constrained explanatory powers of science would render it unexplainable)

And, isn't the whole area of abiogenesis research a waste of time if your "billions of years = unexplainable" rule applies?

You are right about one thing Wesley, it is more productive to move on to other things than it is to try to explain how evolution works.

--------------
"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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,11:46

Quote (Richard Simons @ Oct. 31 2008,15:49)

�

Quote

I'm not asking how some ancient system came about Louis. �I'm asking how the present, modern E. coli amino acid synthesis system came about.

I know almost nothing about this topic, but at a guess I'd say 'through evolution from an ancient system'.

Daniel, it seems to me that you are attributing far more knowledge to scientists than they themselves are claiming. Do you truly think it reasonable that after a few decades of people studying the origins of life they should be able to answer in great detail every question you throw at them? You seem to think they have god-like powers. By contrast, your explanation has gained no new information or understanding in the last 4000 years or thereabouts.

Richard,

A) Lots of scientific research has been carried out by people who believe as I do in the last 4000 years. �Some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time have been the result of the work of believers in a creative God. �Even since the time of Darwin, research from an anti-Darwinist perspective has carried on. �I've cited some of it here, but much of it goes on under cover - for fear of a loss of funding or standing in the scientific community. �In short, you don't really know what the beliefs of individual scientists are.

B) Even if all the research was being done by non-believers, it wouldn't change the fact that it is gradually beginning to uncover that life is much more intricate than the current evolutionary mechanisms can account for.

C) Your answer as to how the E. coli amino acid synthetic pathway came about - "through evolution from an ancient system" - is about as detailed an answer as you'll probably ever get. �Delve any deeper and the explanation breaks down. �Are you happy with this level of detail?

D) The level of detail offered for your theory is comparable with the level of detail for mine (and I don't even have a theory). �What does that say about your theory?

--------------
"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

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,11:58

Portia obfuscates

Quote

Does it ever bother you Wesley that the "part of the natural world [that] remains undocumented" is the nuts and bolts of how evolution works? Or does that merit "no more than a shrug" also?

Your whining mewling complaints are not about 'how evolution works' but 'how life works'. If you can't be bothered to clarify your claims so that they can be evaluate on the merit of evidence, then you're just a troll.

Quote

Lots of scientific research has been carried out by people who believe as I do in the last 4000 years. Some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time have been the result of the work of believers in a creative God. Even since the time of Darwin, research from an anti-Darwinist perspective has carried on. I've cited some of it here, but much of it goes on under cover - for fear of a loss of funding or standing in the scientific community. In short, you don't really know what the beliefs of individual scientists are.

some of the most heinous atrocious crimes that have ever been committed have been the result of the work of believers in a creative God. It's called "non-sequitor" Daniel and it explains your epistemology to a T.

all of your arguments about nomogenesis simply reference the beliefs of individuals scientists. so you are being a tad inconsistent, Portia. Not that this is a surprise, you don't care about the truth just about grinding your cross into an axe.

Quote

The level of detail offered for your theory is comparable with the level of detail for mine (and I don't even have a theory). What does that say about your theory?

so you don't have a theory so you can't have any level of detail for your theory. not only is this a really dumb thing to say because you have contradicted yourself, again, it shows that you also don't care about the truth. just trolling the board waggling your inadequacy around like a badge of honor.

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

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,12:53

Daniel sez.

Quote

...Lots of scientific research has been carried out by people who believe as I do in the last 4000 years.

...uh oh .....another batshit crazy AFDAVE YEC type.

Please specify your source for the "last 4000 years"

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

There is absolutely no point "debating" this twat.

It's no better than discussing the big bang with a gold fish.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,13:41

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 01 2008,12:53)

Daniel sez.

Quote

...Lots of scientific research has been carried out by people who believe as I do in the last 4000 years.

...uh oh .....another batshit crazy AFDAVE YEC type.

Please specify your source for the "last 4000 years"

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

There is absolutely no point "debating" this twat.

It's no better than discussing the big bang with a gold fish.

no doubt. nothing resembling a 'debate' has arisen yet.

but mockery on the other hand is entirely apropos. i don't think ~~G.O.P.~~ ~~Vmartin~~ ~~Legion~~ Daniel would expect anything less.

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

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,13:42

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 30 2008,22:14)

ETA: HEY, UD, we're over here discussing Gene Hackman ferchrissakes. Get on with it an post some good TARD!!

Can we sacrifice something to the gods and make UD post more? We're dying over here. Need some tard!

stevestory

Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,13:54

'cause, you know, if i had to be all Abraham to Louis's Isaac, I think something could be arranged....

Richard Simons

Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,14:36

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2008,11:46)

A) Lots of scientific research has been carried out by people who believe as I do in the last 4000 years.

�
You completely missed my point. I did not say that believers in the Abrahamic god have never contributed to science. Please read again for understanding.

Quote

B) Even if all the research was being done by non-believers, it wouldn't change the fact that it is gradually beginning to uncover that life is much more intricate than the current evolutionary mechanisms can account for.

Not true.

Quote

C) Your answer as to how the E. coli amino acid synthetic pathway came about - "through evolution from an ancient system" - is about as detailed an answer as you'll probably ever get. �Delve any deeper and the explanation breaks down. �Are you happy with this level of detail?

Not true. It is extremely likely that a more detailed understanding will become available, and is probably available even now. As I implied, I have no expertise in the matter.

Quote

D) The level of detail offered for your theory is comparable with the level of detail for mine (and I don't even have a theory). �What does that say about your theory?

I'm sorry, I was thinking that you are a creationist. However, casting my mind back I realise you have always failed to tell us just what you do believe to be correct.

Just saying that the theory of evolution has no detail does not automatically erase all the details that have been published. The specific detail that you are looking for right now might not exist yet, but let's be honest, that is why you picked that particular detail.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

dnmlthr

Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,15:04

Daniel Smith: Not to mention the fallacious reasoning at the core of your argument - that evidence against evolution would constitute positive evidence for your pet theory by default.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,18:10

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2008,11:25)

� �

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2008,11:58)

Daniel Smith:

� � � � �

Quote

I have no fears of scientific discovery because I find that all of it deepens my faith in an infinitely creative God.

What I take from what I've learned is that His mechanism for getting things done is what evolutionary science has figured out. If you keep busy insisting on telling God how He did things, you're likely not listening to the evidence.

Now, about examples... you ask about a particular process. Nobody who knows what they are talking about claims that science cannot understand things if any part of the natural world remains undocumented, which is essentially what your claims hang upon. This is standard-fare religious antievolution procedure, to ignore those places where good data has been acquired and to insist that places without such good data are somehow fraught with significance. The reason people aren't falling over themselves concerning your argument about E. coli amino acid handling is that it merits no more than a shrug. Somebody with unreasonable doubt insists upon video-tape-level evidence for something that happened over a billion years ago before they'll credit science with having any answers about "life's systems", and the reaction of anyone with a clue is either to move on to something productive or to poke them with a rhetorical stick. The fact that some people chose the stick doesn't validate the argument.

Wesley, you brought up the Krebs' cycle. �I'm assuming you would call this one of "those places where good data has been acquired"? �I'm not ignoring it - as you claim. �I'm still waiting for an answer from you as to whether the authors of the paper you cited address the synthesis and regulation of the enzymes in their hypothetical pathways. �Or do they pull pre-synthesized, pre-regulated enzymes out of thin air?

Uh, it is not my job to feed you the information you need to realize your claims are ignorant. Not unless we set up a tutor-student arrangement, and that would require some $$$.

�

Quote

Does it ever bother you Wesley that the "part of the natural world [that] remains undocumented" is the nuts and bolts of how evolution works? �Or does that merit "no more than a shrug" also?

It does bother me that you are willing to tell falsehoods instead of reducing your ignorance. You could have been worth more than a shrug, but you have long since expended any benefit of the doubt that might have initially been extended to you.

Quote

You claim I have "unreasonable doubt". �How is doubting a theory that provides no details as to how it actually works "unreasonable"?

False premise. Learn something. Get a clue.

Get the textbook by Douglas Futuyma. Read it. Want more details? Actually read articles in journals like "Evolution". Read books by authors like Fisher, Wright, and Mayr. You claim that no details exist. This says way more about you and your pride in ignorance than it does about evolutionary science.

Quote

What would "reasonable doubt" look like in such a scenario?

Pick a case where that applies... religious antievolution stances would do nicely. The sort of doubt seen in various responses to religious antievolution then would provide exemplars of reasonable doubt.

Quote

You chide me for asking for "video-tape-level evidence for something that happened over a billion years ago" - yet I'm told that the particular system I'm asking about is a "modern" "highly-specific" system, and that no one is proposing that such a "modern" system works like ancient systems. �So which is it? �Is it a modern, highly specific system? (which should be explainable by sciences' apparently time-constrained explanatory powers) �Or is it an ancient, billion-years-old system? �(which I guess, under the time-constrained explanatory powers of science would render it unexplainable)

Not having video-tape-level evidence is not the same as "unexplainable". It does mean that techniques other than the simplistic approaches you seem to favor must be employed. So far as I know, systems for handling amino acids of the sort you describe in your argument are ancient. I'd be open to learning otherwise. Whether ancient or recent, though, any such system arising leaves no fossil record, and absent the video-tape-level record you seem to require, the same sorts of approaches based on comparison, phylogenetics, and inference will be the underpinnings of explanation. And, predictably, you will reject any approach to explanation that does not have a continuous record showing that "the designer" didn't blip in and go "poof!" at some point.

Quote

And, isn't the whole area of abiogenesis research a waste of time if your "billions of years = unexplainable" rule applies?

Since I never said any such thing, much less asserted such a thing as a "rule", your question doesn't seem to be coherent. Not that that would be a novelty.

Quote

You are right about one thing Wesley, it is more productive to move on to other things than it is to try to explain how evolution works.

I'm sure that is true for ignorant blowhards such as yourself. Explaining how evolution works requires that one understand it first. Unfortunately for you, coherent criticism of evolutionary science also requires prior understanding, and everything you've said so far confirms that such a state of affairs is a long way away from you.

There now, I didn't trim away any part of your response. Feel better?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Reed

Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,18:59

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2008,09:46)

A) Lots of scientific research has been carried out by people who believe as I do in the last 4000 years. �Some of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time have been the result of the work of believers in a creative God.

But you are missing the critical point, as usual.

Those people figured stuff out in spite of being steeped in irrational dogma not based on the content of that dogma. Many great scientists have been religious, but I challenge you to point out any whose great discoveries were arrived at based on the content of their religious beliefs.

Newton didn't get his calculus or laws of motion from the ancient legends, he figured it out, using logic and evidence. The fact that he accepted some other loony beliefs isn't relevant to the validity of calculus, because calculus isn't based on those beliefs.

Lou FCD

Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,19:22

On a somewhat more productive note, we had a great Halloween, and the neighborhood folks all really loved the haunted trail in the back yard.

Have I mentioned that Halloween is our big fun holiday?

(The term "Griswalds of Halloween" seems to recur rather frequently....)

Love Halloween, but having been deathly ill for better than two days this week, and having to come from behind on the setup, I'm kinda glad it's behind us now.

I'm uploading photos now, with video to follow soon. (Possibly in a day or two, once the clean-up is behind.)

ETA:

Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 01 2008,20:28

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Nov. 01 2008,21:11

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2008,19:10)

Get the textbook by Douglas Futuyma. Read it. Want more details? Actually read articles in journals like "Evolution". Read books by authors like Fisher, Wright, and Mayr. You claim that no details exist. This says way more about you and your pride in ignorance than it does about evolutionary science.

Start with Futuyma's excerpted chapter here. You could do worse.

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

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Nov. 02 2008,11:50

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2008,16:10)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Nov. 01 2008,11:25)

� � � �

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 30 2008,11:58)

Daniel Smith:

� � � � � � �

Quote

I have no fears of scientific discovery because I find that all of it deepens my faith in an infinitely creative God.

What I take from what I've learned is that His mechanism for getting things done is what evolutionary science has figured out. If you keep busy insisting on telling God how He did things, you're likely not listening to the evidence.

Now, about examples... you ask about a particular process. Nobody who knows what they are talking about claims that science cannot understand things if any part of the natural world remains undocumented, which is essentially what your claims hang upon. This is standard-fare religious antievolution procedure, to ignore those places where good data has been acquired and to insist that places without such good data are somehow fraught with significance. The reason people aren't falling over themselves concerning your argument about E. coli amino acid handling is that it merits no more than a shrug. Somebody with unreasonable doubt insists upon video-tape-level evidence for something that happened over a billion years ago before they'll credit science with having any answers about "life's systems", and the reaction of anyone with a clue is either to move on to something productive or to poke them with a rhetorical stick. The fact that some people chose the stick doesn't validate the argument.

Wesley, you brought up the Krebs' cycle. �I'm assuming you would call this one of "those places where good data has been acquired"? �I'm not ignoring it - as you claim. �I'm still waiting for an answer from you as to whether the authors of the paper you cited address the synthesis and regulation of the enzymes in their hypothetical pathways. �Or do they pull pre-synthesized, pre-regulated enzymes out of thin air?

Uh, it is not my job to feed you the information you need to realize your claims are ignorant. Not unless we set up a tutor-student arrangement, and that would require some $$$.

� � �

Quote

Does it ever bother you Wesley that the "part of the natural world [that] remains undocumented" is the nuts and bolts of how evolution works? �Or does that merit "no more than a shrug" also?

It does bother me that you are willing to tell falsehoods instead of reducing your ignorance. You could have been worth more than a shrug, but you have long since expended any benefit of the doubt that might have initially been extended to you.

�

Quote

You claim I have "unreasonable doubt". �How is doubting a theory that provides no details as to how it actually works "unreasonable"?

False premise. Learn something. Get a clue.

Get the textbook by Douglas Futuyma. Read it. Want more details? Actually read articles in journals like "Evolution". Read books by authors like Fisher, Wright, and Mayr. You claim that no details exist. This says way more about you and your pride in ignorance than it does about evolutionary science.

�

Quote

What would "reasonable doubt" look like in such a scenario?

Pick a case where that applies... religious antievolution stances would do nicely. The sort of doubt seen in various responses to religious antievolution then would provide exemplars of reasonable doubt.

�

Quote

You chide me for asking for "video-tape-level evidence for something that happened over a billion years ago" - yet I'm told that the particular system I'm asking about is a "modern" "highly-specific" system, and that no one is proposing that such a "modern" system works like ancient systems. �So which is it? �Is it a modern, highly specific system? (which should be explainable by sciences' apparently time-constrained explanatory powers) �Or is it an ancient, billion-years-old system? �(which I guess, under the time-constrained explanatory powers of science would render it unexplainable)

Not having video-tape-level evidence is not the same as "unexplainable". It does mean that techniques other than the simplistic approaches you seem to favor must be employed. So far as I know, systems for handling amino acids of the sort you describe in your argument are ancient. I'd be open to learning otherwise. Whether ancient or recent, though, any such system arising leaves no fossil record, and absent the video-tape-level record you seem to require, the same sorts of approaches based on comparison, phylogenetics, and inference will be the underpinnings of explanation. And, predictably, you will reject any approach to explanation that does not have a continuous record showing that "the designer" didn't blip in and go "poof!" at some point.

�

Quote

And, isn't the whole area of abiogenesis research a waste of time if your "billions of years = unexplainable" rule applies?

Since I never said any such thing, much less asserted such a thing as a "rule", your question doesn't seem to be coherent. Not that that would be a novelty.

�

Quote

You are right about one thing Wesley, it is more productive to move on to other things than it is to try to explain how evolution works.

I'm sure that is true for ignorant blowhards such as yourself. Explaining how evolution works requires that one understand it first. Unfortunately for you, coherent criticism of evolutionary science also requires prior understanding, and everything you've said so far confirms that such a state of affairs is a long way away from you.

There now, I didn't trim away any part of your response. Feel better?

Wesley,

Your "answers" to my questions are mostly vacuous. �I can only conclude that your refusal to answer my question as to enzymes in the Krebs' cycle and your deflection of that burden onto me is a result of the fact that the paper you cited does not deal with their synthesis or regulation. �

You also failed to deal with the dichotomy that the main excuses for not knowing the origin of E. coli amino acid synthesis is that A) it is a modern, highly evolved system which is nothing like the ancient systems and B) it is a system so ancient we have no way of knowing how it might have come about! �Your "fossil record" dodge is especially comical - because everyone knows that you can't construct hypothetical biochemical pathways without fossil evidence (!?)

You say I'll "reject any approach to explanation that does not have a continuous record showing that "the designer" didn't blip in and go "poof!" at some point", but how can that be when you have no explanations to offer? �I need something to "reject" don't I? �What I'm interested in (and what I predict will never be offered) is an explanation that works. �You say that nature can build complex systems with no direction or guidance. �All I'm asking is "How?". �Is that really too much to ask?

--------------
"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

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006