RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,06:31   

ever define information yet?

Or explain how a back mutation that results in exactly the same DNA strand results in less information than it had before the mutations?

No?

I'm shocked.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
fusilier



Posts: 250
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,06:40   

[quote=Otangelo,Nov. 17 2015,16:03]
Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 17 2015,06:51)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,19:26)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2015,15:07)
{snip}
Well, was coded, complex specified information and interdependent , irreducible complex systems predicted by the ToE ? {snip}

I hope I'm not too late with this, but in 1918, 35 years before Prof. Behe was born, H.J. Muller proposed the idea of "interlocking complexity" as a consequence of Descent with Modification.

As other posters have already pointed out, "Complex Specified Information" is completely undefined, except as "That ineffable property which only Go ...err, sorry, ... The Disembodied Telic Entity can produce."

Behe's Critics' Scaffolding Falls Down

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1656-h....ed#4297

And there's another problem with the scaffolding objection. Behe defines irreducible complexity as requiring not just one part, but "several well-matched, interacting parts."


Even if you end up with an irreducibly complex system by removing parts from scaffolding, you still had to build the scaffolding. How does unguided evolution build the scaffolding by adding parts?

In that regard, adding parts to build scaffolding may be more complicated than ID critics would admit. Adding a part isn't always that simple, even if it isn't indispensible. Sometimes simply getting a functional protein-protein interaction is beyond the reach of Darwinian evolution. In 2004, Behe and Snoke published a paper in Protein Science reporting results of computer simulations and theoretical calculations. They showed that the Darwinian evolution of a simple functional bond between two proteins would be highly unlikely to occur in populations of multicellular organisms. The reason, simply put, is because too many amino acids would have to be fixed by non-adaptive mutations before gaining any functional binding interaction.

How unexpected:  the goalposts are moving, and a red-herring or two are being dragged across the posts.

Your original statement was:
Quote
Well, was coded, complex specified information and interdependent , irreducible complex systems predicted by the ToE ?


I pointed out that, yes, so-called "irreducible" (Behe used the term irreducibly), complex systems had been predicted by evolutionary biologists, nearly four decades before Behe was born.  The term "interlocking complexity," in Muller's paper in Genetics as well as his 1946 (? I could be wrong on the year, sorry) Nobel acceptance speech, is explicitly Behe's notion.

So that portion of your claim is demonstrably false.

You know, you really shouldn't be citing Behe and Snokes (2004.)  Behe's original claim was that protein evolution simply could not occur, unless directed by some outside agency.  Behe and Snokes demonstrated that it can.  

"Unlikely" does not mean the same thing as "impossible."
Behe proved himself wrong.

As an aside, back in 1996, when Behe was going on book-signing tours, loudly proclaiming that NO ONE had EVER studied biochemical evolution, I was getting flyers from a publisher to use "Biochemical Evolution, 2nd Edition" in my courses.  (Since I teach Human Anatomy and Physiology, it wasn't a good fit, so I passed on the opportunity.)

Your website assertions are merely wordsmithing and flappdoodle, and otherwise not worth the ATP to refute.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,08:58   

Quote
peptidyltransferase is not your life-saving buoy. It forms peptide bonds between adjacent amino acids using tRNAs during the translation process of protein biosynthesis.


Moron. I asked you what peptidyltransferase IS, not what it DOES. Maybe you should review basic English interrogative pronouns.

 
Quote
Thats a highly specific task, which requires  all other ribosome parts et al.  in place , otherwise it would have no function.

What part of the ribosome is the peptidyltransferase? The active site of the enzyme, idiot.

Keep it simple and a single word: peptidyltransferase is a _.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,09:17   

Otangelo seems to be a serial spammer and plagiarist who has posted this same drivel at dozens of C/E sites.  He's used numerous different handles; he's been banned from many sites for the mindless C&Ping.  Right now he's over at TheSkepticalZone ticking off the regulars with his preaching and refusal to defend his nonsense.

Looks like it's our turn.  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,09:25   

Quote
A vast amount of complex and specified information encoded in a biochemical language;

Language already presumes intelligence because language is communcation between one intelligent being and another intelligent being. As biochemistry does none of those it is not a language of any sort. Niether is it demonstrated to be informatoin because information is produced by intelligent beings. You need to demonstrate it was produced by an intelligence to say it contains information. It contains no more informatoin than the placement of stars tells me where I am and what time of the year it is. The star has no information.

Quote
A computer-like system of commands and codes that processes the information.

Presumes the previous point which is flawed from the ground up. But even then it's just chemicals doing chemistry. Just because we can draw analogies between it and a computer to more easily understand it doesn't make it a computer or even like one.

Quote
But where in our experience do things like language, complex and specified information, programming code, or machines come from? They have one and only one known source: intelligence.

That is because they are definitionally produced by them, for things to be those things they must be shown to be the product OF an intelligence. We do however know that things like these can have a natural origin.

Patterns in nature appear for many reasons without intelligence and in evolution it's even simpler, whatever has evolutionary benifits evolves forth over time and this has been done in computer simulations where simple hydrodynamics combined with limitation of fluid and pressure results in the system evolving forth a structure that looks very much like how our arteries and the likes are in our brain and tissues in general. It simply is the efficient method to do the work with those rules and constraints.

There is no intelligence behind rivers forming the way they do, even though they curve in nice curves over times, but a product of topology and simple physics.

You got the cart before the damn horse when it came to your initial thing and even then you don't understand evolution, in evolution you expect things to get more "complex" because it simply is more efficient. Dividing up work and forming systems is more efficient to do the job that has to be done.

You know the old saying, Jack of all trades are good at nothing.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,10:05   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2015,06:31)
ever define information yet?

Or explain how a back mutation that results in exactly the same DNA strand results in less information than it had before the mutations?

No?

I'm shocked.

well, thats a easy one :

The five levels of information



http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1311-t....rmation

information, dividing it into five levels. Wherever information is found, it fits these five levels. These can be illustrated with a STOP sign. The first level, statistics, tells us the STOP sign is one word and has four letters. The second level, syntax, requires the information to fall within the rules of grammar such as correct spelling, word and sentence usage. The word STOP is spelled correctly. The third level, semantics, provides meaning and implications. The STOP sign means that when we walk or drive and approach the sign we are to stop moving, look for traffic and proceed when it is safe. The fourth level, pragmatics, is the application of the coded message. It is not enough to simply recognize the word STOP and understand what it means; we must actually stop when we approach the sign. The fifth level, apobetics, is the overall purpose of the message. The STOP signs are placed by our local government to provide safety and traffic control. The code in DNA completely conforms to all five of these levels of information.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,10:11   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,10:05)
well, thats a easy one :

The five levels of information

Hey, the serial spammer and plagiarist is back!  :)

Your C&Ped vomit still doesn't define "biological information" or explain how you measure biological information to tell if it has increased or decreased.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,10:13   

Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 18 2015,06:40)

I did not answer to your point about Muller, simply because you are right. He came up with interlocked complexity in 1935. So what ?

And the evolution of proteins is still a problem for proponents of naturalism to explain.

There are actually two problems to explain:

1. How the minimal set of proteins emerged to make the first living cell, in particular DNA replication proteins

2. and how new proteins to make new body plans could have evolved after life was up and going.

In case of 1. you can't bring evolution into the game, since evolution depends on replication. So all you are left with, are luck and chance as mechanism to make the proteins of DNA replication

and in regard of 2. Behe made a nice analogy :

Darwins Black Box page 40:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2115-t....ox#3760

So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market. Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the «biker» look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by «numerous, successive, slight modifications»—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,10:15   

Quote (JAM @ Nov. 18 2015,08:58)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,04:23)
 
Quote
peptidyltransferase is not your life-saving buoy. It forms peptide bonds between adjacent amino acids using tRNAs during the translation process of protein biosynthesis.


Moron. I asked you what peptidyltransferase IS, not what it DOES. Maybe you should review basic English interrogative pronouns.

 
Quote
Thats a highly specific task, which requires  all other ribosome parts et al.  in place , otherwise it would have no function.

What part of the ribosome is the peptidyltransferase? The active site of the enzyme, idiot.

Keep it simple and a single word: peptidyltransferase is a _.

 
Quote
peptidyltransferase is not your life-saving buoy. It forms peptide bonds between adjacent amino acids using tRNAs during the translation process of protein biosynthesis.


Moron. I asked you what peptidyltransferase IS, not what it DOES. Maybe you should review basic English interrogative pronouns.

 
Quote
Thats a highly specific task, which requires  all other ribosome parts et al.  in place , otherwise it would have no function.

What part of the ribosome is the peptidyltransferase? The active site of the enzyme, idiot.

Keep it simple and a single word: peptidyltransferase is a _.

After Occam, you are the second poster here on my ignore list. Good bye.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,10:18   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,10:13)
There are actually two problems to explain:

1. How the minimal set of proteins emerged to make the first living cell, in particular DNA replication proteins

2. and how new proteins to make new body plans could have evolved after life was up and going.


Yawn.  The same Creationist stupidity.  "Science doesn't know all the steps yet therefore GAWDDIDIT!!"

Quote
and in regard of 2. Behe made a nice analogy :


The serial spammer and plagiarizer still too dumb to get that analogies aren't evidence.

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,10:20   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,10:15)
After Occam, you are the second poster here on my ignore list. Good bye.

Gee, I suppose we should feel honored.  A serial spammer and plagiarist has decided he's too afraid to respond.

That's OK Otangelo.  We'll still keep answering your idiocy and showing what a scientifically ignorant nincompoop you are.  No charge.   :)

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,11:10   

What a fucking tool.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
fusilier



Posts: 250
Joined: Feb. 2003

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,11:39   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,11:13)
Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 18 2015,06:40)

I did not answer to your point about Muller, simply because you are right. He came up with interlocked complexity in 1935. So what ?

And the evolution of proteins is still a problem for proponents of naturalism to explain.

There are actually two problems to explain:

1. How the minimal set of proteins emerged to make the first living cell, in particular DNA replication proteins

2. and how new proteins to make new body plans could have evolved after life was up and going.

In case of 1. you can't bring evolution into the game, since evolution depends on replication. So all you are left with, are luck and chance as mechanism to make the proteins of DNA replication

and in regard of 2. Behe made a nice analogy :

Darwins Black Box page 40:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2115-t....ox#3760

So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market. Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the «biker» look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by «numerous, successive, slight modifications»—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.

[quote=fusilier,Nov. 18 2015,06:40][/quote]
Quote

I did not answer to your point about Muller, simply because you are right. He came up with interlocked complexity in 1935. So what ?


Muller's Genetics paper was in 1918, not 1935.  The "what" is that you loudly proclaimed  evolutionary biology did not and could not predict "irreducibly complex" structures, but that goddidit does.  You were wrong.  When corrected, you now pretend that you never did so.

That isn't merely being wrong, it's telling a lie.  

For the balance of your flapdoodle, I invite you to read several hundred papers from Jack Szostak's lab:

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostak....ns.html

The late Carl Woese also demolished your claim.

OBTW, motorcycles don't reproduce.  Otherwise there's this really nice Moto Guzzi/Indian hybrid I've been thinking about.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,12:07   

Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 18 2015,11:39)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,11:13)
Quote (fusilier @ Nov. 18 2015,06:40)

I did not answer to your point about Muller, simply because you are right. He came up with interlocked complexity in 1935. So what ?

And the evolution of proteins is still a problem for proponents of naturalism to explain.

There are actually two problems to explain:

1. How the minimal set of proteins emerged to make the first living cell, in particular DNA replication proteins

2. and how new proteins to make new body plans could have evolved after life was up and going.

In case of 1. you can't bring evolution into the game, since evolution depends on replication. So all you are left with, are luck and chance as mechanism to make the proteins of DNA replication

and in regard of 2. Behe made a nice analogy :

Darwins Black Box page 40:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2115-t....ox#3760

So let us attempt to evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle by the gradual accumulation of mutations. Suppose that a factory produced bicycles, but that occasionally there was a mistake in manufacture. Let us further suppose that if the mistake led to an improvement in the bicycle, then the friends and neighbors of the lucky buyer would demand similar bikes, and the factory would retool to make the mutation a permanent feature. So, like biological mutations, successful mechanical mutations would reproduce and spread. If we are to keep our analogy relevant to biology, however, each change can only be a slight modification, duplication, or rearrangement of a preexisting component, and the change must improve the function of the bicycle. So if the factory mistakenly increased the size of a nut or decreased the diameter of a bolt, or added an extra wheel onto the front axle or left off the rear tire, or put a pedal on the handlebars or added extra spokes, and if any of these slight changes improved the bike ride, then the improvement would immediately be noticed by the buying public and the mutated bikes would, in true Darwinian fashion, dominate the market. Given these conditions, can we evolve a bicycle into a motorcycle? We can move in the right direction by making the seat more comfortable in small steps, the wheels bigger, and even (assuming our customers prefer the «biker» look) imitating the overall shape in various ways. But a motorcycle depends on a source of fuel, and a bicycle has nothing that can be slightly modified to become a gasoline tank. And what part of the bicycle could be duplicated to begin building a motor? Even if a lucky accident brought a lawnmower engine from a neighboring factory into the bicycle factory, the motor would have to be mounted on the bike and be connected in the right way to the drive chain. How could this be done step-by-step from bicycle parts? A factory that made bicycles simply could not produce a motorcycle by natural selection acting on variation—by «numerous, successive, slight modifications»—and in fact there is no example in history of a complex change in a product occurring in this manner.

[quote=fusilier,Nov. 18 2015,06:40][/quote]  
Quote

I did not answer to your point about Muller, simply because you are right. He came up with interlocked complexity in 1935. So what ?


Muller's Genetics paper was in 1918, not 1935.  The "what" is that you loudly proclaimed  evolutionary biology did not and could not predict "irreducibly complex" structures, but that goddidit does.  You were wrong.  When corrected, you now pretend that you never did so.

That isn't merely being wrong, it's telling a lie.  

For the balance of your flapdoodle, I invite you to read several hundred papers from Jack Szostak's lab:

http://molbio.mgh.harvard.edu/szostak....ns.html

The late Carl Woese also demolished your claim.

OBTW, motorcycles don't reproduce.  Otherwise there's this really nice Moto Guzzi/Indian hybrid I've been thinking about.

Well, irreducible complexity is basically the opposit of step by step , gradual evolution by mutations and natural selection. So no miracle here for Muller to come up with the concept.

When Szostak has a compelling explanation of how life came to be, a prize of 1mio dollar awaits for him, and the Nobel prize.

But i doubt that will ever happen, since abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE to happen. THAT is a fact.....

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,12:17   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,12:07)
[snip]

But i doubt that will ever happen, since abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE to happen. THAT is a fact.....

And you've failed basic logic there - universal negatives.

Also, you clearly don't understand ID, which is a (flawed) probabilistic argument. (Improbable vs impossible)

So you're dismissed.

Next?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,12:18   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,12:07)
But i doubt that will ever happen, since abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE to happen. THAT is a fact.....

Another blustering empty claim by the spamming plagiarist.  :p

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,12:23   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,13:07)
...
Well, irreducible complexity is basically the opposit of step by step , gradual evolution by mutations and natural selection. So no miracle here for Muller to come up with the concept.

Nonsense.
And beside the point.
You were wrong.  You lied in your response.
And you are running away from all the various counters and challenges raised against the PRATTs you've posted.
Quote
When Szostak has a compelling explanation of how life came to be, a prize of 1mio dollar awaits for him, and the Nobel prize.

But i doubt that will ever happen, since abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE to happen. THAT is a fact.....

When you have a compelling and detailed explanation of how life  came to be, we'll be fascinated.
"Poof" is neither rationally compelling nor detailed.
Amongst other logical flaws, all cases of creation known to us, without exception, are interactions between matter.
A 'disembodied mind', whatever else it might be, is entirely impotent.  It can have no causal impact.
Evidence to the contrary, not merely wishful thinking, is required.

Why is abiogenesis impossible?  What particular chemical reactions are not possible but occur in the transition from non-living to living?
We have concrete real examples of such transitions -- potato mosaic virus being one of  the better known.
At no point in the process, vague and indeterminate though the exact point of change may be, is  there anything going on that is not physical.  As such, there is nothing going on that is not explicable by chemistry and physics.
That's far more than you have.  Far better supported by evidence.  And logic.

Until you can demonstrate that there is some violation of chemical and physical behavior required for life to occur, you are merely asserting your own wishful thinking.
Waffling on about 'information' is irrelevant.  Provide the actual chemical and/or physical impossibilities that prevent abiogenesis.
There are none known.  You'd get quit a prize if you could provide one.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,12:54   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,12:23)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

There are many reasons. I will post a small list to begin with:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-a....ossible

1.  In Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

2. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

3. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

4. If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning.  

5.The sugar found in the backbone of both DNA and RNA, ribose, has been particularly problematic, as the most prebiotically plausible chemical reaction schemes have typically yielded only a small amount of ribose mixed with a diverse assortment of other sugar molecules.

6. all the peptide links to form a proptein must be alpha-peptide bonds, not some mix of alpha and epsilon,beta, and gamma bonds


http://www.newgeology.us/present....32.html

"The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar.  If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.  If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy.  And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."


7.amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?

8. Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,12:58   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,12:54)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,12:23)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

There are many reasons. I will post a small list to begin with:

Unknowns to overcome but not one thing that makes abiogenesis impossible.

Same idiot blithering.  :D

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,13:04   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 18 2015,12:58)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,12:54)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,12:23)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

There are many reasons. I will post a small list to begin with:

Unknowns to overcome but not one thing that makes abiogenesis impossible.

Same idiot blithering.  :D

Fails basic logic.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,13:14   

Quote
But i doubt that will ever happen, since abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE to happen. THAT is a fact.....

The fact is that scientists disagree, if you think they are wrong why aren't you publishing your results in a scientific journal yourself? It'd save them a lot of work.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,13:29   

Prediction: Ignore followed by more copypasta.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,13:54   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,13:54)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,12:23)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

There are many reasons. I will post a small list to begin with:

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1279-a....ossible

1.  In Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

2. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

3. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

4. If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning.  

5.The sugar found in the backbone of both DNA and RNA, ribose, has been particularly problematic, as the most prebiotically plausible chemical reaction schemes have typically yielded only a small amount of ribose mixed with a diverse assortment of other sugar molecules.

6. all the peptide links to form a proptein must be alpha-peptide bonds, not some mix of alpha and epsilon,beta, and gamma bonds


http://www.newgeology.us/present....32.html

"The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar.  If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water.  If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy.  And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."


7.amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?

8. Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.

None of those are adequate.
We have  life.
We have chemistry and physics.
We have no reason whatsoever to believe that chemistry and physics could not lead to the formation of life.

I note  with mild interest that you ignore the example of tobacco mosaic virus.
I note you appear to be unfamiliar with, and likely unaware of, Schrodinger's production of DNA prior to its discovery.
Surely one of the great predictions of evolutionary theory, confirmed and continuing to be useful.
Not a single prediction of 'design "theory"' has such evidentiary backing.
All 'design "theory"' does is whine about alleged problems with the genuine sciences.  It produces nothing of itself, it merely casts aspersions.  And whine, endlessly.

Your claim was not that abiogenesis was unlikely, your claim was that it was impossible.
The strongest of your, frankly ignorant, objections, can show, at most, that abiogenesis is unlikely.

Your claim, you need to support it.   Why is abiogenesis impossible?
Particularly, the  challenge you must overcome is to show that there is some aspect of life that violates the laws of chemistry and physics.  Until and unless such demonstration is provided, there is little, as in no, warrant, to suppose that chemistry and physics do not suffice.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,14:44   

Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 18 2015,13:14)
Quote
But i doubt that will ever happen, since abiogenesis is IMPOSSIBLE to happen. THAT is a fact.....

The fact is that scientists disagree, if you think they are wrong why aren't you publishing your results in a scientific journal yourself? It'd save them a lot of work.

ah no ?

Evolutionist George Wald reflected on this dilemma and wrote

"The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.

Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.

According to the most generous mathematical criteria for evolution, abiogenesis and monogenesis are impossible to unimaginable extremes.

Abiogenic Origin of Life: A Theory in Crisis
Ó 2005 Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.
Professor of Geology and Biology

To give you an idea of how incomprehensible, I use the following illustration. An ameba starts out at one side of the universe and begins walking towards the other side, say, 100 trillion light years away. He travels at the rate of one meter per billion years. He carries one atom with him. When he reaches the other side, he puts the atom down and starts back. In 10186 years, the ameba will have transported the entire mass of the universe from one side to the other and back a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion times. That is my definition of impossible. And what resulted from success, if it did occur would not be a living cell or even a promising combination. Spontaneous origin of life on a prebiological earth is IMPOSSIBLE!

biologist Francis Crick acknowledged in 1981:

  "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going."

Abiogenesis is not only unproven, it is mathematically impossible. No wonder both Orgel and Crick called it a miracle.

― Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory In Crisis

“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”

Some have suggested that certain clay or crystal surfaces might "select" one isomer over another and therefore, purify a mixture of like handed (optically pure) molecules. However, this argument ignores that fact that the entropy states of the two isomers are identical and are very difficult to separate. Secondly, experimental chemistry shows that it is impossible to get pure mixtures of one or the other isomer this way. Irregularities in the structure of the clay or crystal surfaces would result in the accumulation of both isomers, i.e., contaminants. Since this is so, if even one incorrect isomer gets integrated into a protein or nucleic acid, its 3-D structure would be destroyed.

The Second Law, coupled with the fact that these condensation reactions are reversible, drives the solution in the net direction of a mixture containing predominantly unbonded building blocks. According to thermodynamic calculations by Harold Blum (Time's Arrow and Evolution), in a watery solution about 1% of amino acids will exist as dipeptides (two bonded amino acids), .001% as tripeptides and less than one in 10/20 will exist in a chain of ten amino acids. Those that do bond will be quickly unbonded when a collision with water occurs unless these unlikely, reduced entropy molecules are stored and kept away from the solution in equilibrium. 41. In a primordial soup, random molecular movement would cause the building blocks of life to diffuse away from their site of origin. Just as concentrated red dye will disperse when dropped into water, the building blocks of DNA and protein will also diffuse until equilibrium is reached. At this point there would be billions of water molecules for every unbonded building block. This process, along with the rapid breakdown of nucleotides and amino acids by oxygen and UV radiation, makes it almost impossible to imagine how, in a watery environment, biochemical precursors could combine, stay combined and continue to build upon each other in the fact of the concept of chemical equilibrium.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,14:46   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,13:54)
  Why is abiogenesis impossible?

more reasons :

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-t....-design

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,14:59   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,14:46)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,13:54)
  Why is abiogenesis impossible?

more reasons :

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-t....-design

You don't really understand "impossible", do you?


But like a good creationist, you just ignore the bits that don't work for you and press on. I'm sure your points getting destroyed doesn't stop you raising them again in the future. Seen it all before.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11110
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,15:02   

Liar: " Orgel and Crick called it a miracle. "

The quote just above it:

" almost a miracle" - Crick. No supporting Orgel quote given. Why do you lie? What do you think happens to liars?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,15:19   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,15:46)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,13:54)
  Why is abiogenesis impossible?

more reasons :

The hardware and software of the cell, evidence of design

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-t....-design

Design in the usual sense of the term is an irrelevancy.  A red herring.
What is needed is evidence of manufacture.
This is starkly missing.
Many things are design but never produced.  Many things  are produced but not designed.  

All the design claims can possibly lead to are conclusions that intelligent living material beings created life on earth.
Obviously, this solves no problems, but merely shifts the problem elsewhere.  As such it is worse than nonsense, it is useless nonsense.

This is one of many reasons why 'design inferences' fail.  They have no explanatory power.
Design explains nothing.
You need evidence of manufacture.  This is starkly missing.

So far all you have done is trot out more and more strained arguments from incredulity.
Your claim, which you still need to defend, is that abiogenesis is impossible.

It clearly occurred -- life exists.  
There is nothing in or about life that violates the laws of chemistry and physics.
Thus, there are no grounds for inferring anything other than chemical and physical abiogenesis.
Attempts to drag poorly defined, vague and equivocal notions like 'information' into the argument, and allowing them to trump far better grounded arguments, are unjustifiable.  They all amount to arguments from incredulity and special pleading.
Worse, from the perspective of the enterprise of human knowledge, they all seek to make a positive claim based solely on asserted problems with the existing explanations.
Flaws in our current understanding of anything at all provide no positive support for otherwise unsupported assertions masquerading as arguments.

So to repeat the question you continue to avoid, about a claim you yourself made quite emphatically
Why is abiogenesis not merely unlikely or improbable, but impossible?

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 2604
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,15:19   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,14:46)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,13:54)
  Why is abiogenesis impossible?

more reasons :

More C&Ped Creationist horsecrap that doesn't support your claim abiogenesis is impossible.

Do you think your lying and bearing false witness will get you into heaven?  Is that why you do it?

--------------
"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

  
Otangelo



Posts: 148
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,15:30   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 18 2015,15:02)
Liar: " Orgel and Crick called it a miracle. "

The quote just above it:

" almost a miracle" - Crick. No supporting Orgel quote given. Why do you lie? What do you think happens to liars?

Richard

you called me a liar without a adequate justification. You ignored all quotes i provided.

Nr.3 on my ignore list. congrats.

  
  490 replies since Nov. 15 2015,11:01 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (17) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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