RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (17) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: Otangelo's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:09   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,10:37)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,06:49)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,18:44)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

ah, want more proof. Here we go....

DNA is irreducible complex

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2093-d....complex

Individual bases : take away the sugar in the DNA backbone = no function
Take away the phosphate in the backbone = no function
Take away the nucleic acid bases = no function
Evolution is not a driving force at this stage, since replication of the cell depends on DNA.
So the individual DNA molecules are irreducible complex
DNA in general ( the double helix )
Unless the two types, purines, and pyrimidines are present, and so the individual four bases = no function, and no hability of information storage
The enzymes and proteins for assembly and synthesis of the DNA structure must also be present, otherwise, no DNA double helix......

Origin of the DNA deoxyribonucleic acid  double helix

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2028-o....e-helix

Self-organizing biochemical cycles 1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

How were ribonucleotides first formed on the primitive earth? This is a very difficult problem. Stanley Miller's synthesis of the amino acids by sparking a reducing atmosphere (2) was the paradigm for prebiotic synthesis for many years, so at first, it was natural to suppose that similar methods would meet with equal success in the nucleotide field. However, nucleotides are intrinsically more complicated than amino acids, and it is by no means obvious that they can be obtained in a few simple steps under prebiotic conditions. A remarkable synthesis of adenine (3) and more or less plausible syntheses of the pyrimidine nucleoside bases (4) have been reported, but the synthesis of ribose and the regiospecific combination of the bases, ribose, and phosphate to give β-nucleotides remain problematical.

1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........MC18793

That's a particularly ridiculous set of assertions from someone who has yet to address the issue I originally raised early in this thread.
DNA is not a 'self-replicating' molecule in and of itself.
It requires a substantial set of complex chemical subsystems with which it interacts.
Take away any of those and it fails to perform as you so simplistically assert that it does.
If you are allowed to ignore the machinery and reduce complex cases to prejudicial overly-simplified sketches, and get away with it, the so am I.  So are we.

Behe's ridiculous 'irreducibly complex' notions have been obliterated, here and elsewhere.
It is an argument from ignorance and incredulity.
'Irreducibly complex' things can evolve.
Consider the arch.
Or perhaps more to the point, and again to raise an evidentiary example you refuse to address, consider the tobacco mosaic virus.

Irreducible complexity is a snare and a delusion.

BTW, nowhere is it granted that abiogenesis nor replication must begin with cells as we know them nor DNA.
You are so out of touch with the last 25, if not 50, years of research as to be unqualified to be making the absolute dicta you are so fond of.

Once again I will suggest you acquaint yourself with Erwin Schrodinger's little masterpiece from the 30's.

You have  simply  ignored everything, and NOT addressed anything of what i said. Nice red herring imho ... congrats.

So, my assertion stands. DNA cannot arise by natural mechanisms alone. The molecule is IC.

Big fail so far to refute my claim.

Your claim is an unsupported, and unsupportable, assertion.
That 'irreducible complexity' is real and applies is your argument.
You have provided no grounds to accept it.
It has been rejected by knowledgeable individuals, including, when push comes to shove, the originator of the notion, Behe himself.  See the testimony at Dover.

Until and unless you can demonstrate the actual factual occurrence of something not just wildly impossible, but ruled out by the laws of chemistry and physics,  your arguments fail.

Your points have, in fact, all been addressed.
I have  also pointed out that your points are irrelevant to the matters at hand.
You are shifting the goalposts and Gish galloping in a furious attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Your claim has been refuted.
You have merely asserted that  DNA cannot arise by natural mechanisms.
You have not identified a single aspect of DNA that requires non-chemical or non-physical acts of any sort.
The laws of chemistry and physics suffice, for no reason to question their sufficiency has survived scrutiny.
Including all of your copy/pasta.

Wrestle with the tobacco mosaic virus  example.  It is a marvelous little example that shows how a non-living crystal can become alive and then once again become a non-living crystal, over and over and over again.
The one who is avoiding matters, who is ignoring what is said, is you.  And yet you are the one here who is making positive, and absolute, claims.  You are demonstrably unqualified to make those claims because you clearly do not understand the fields in question.
Your assertions are merely that.  That which is asserted without evidence or reason can be rejected without evidence or reason.
We have, however, presented reams of evidence and reason, all of which you have ignored.

Shameful.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:09   

Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,11:20)
Quote
What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

Well how about a list?

1: You stop arguement from ignorance
2: You publish your findings in actual scientific peer reviewed journals that are reputable
3: You learn what words and things actually means so you can apply it properly
4: You stop putting the  cart before the horse

A good start

Hey, its not about ME.

Again : what evidence do you expect to encounter in nature to infer design as the best explanation ?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:12   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:17)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 19 2015,11:08)
If it were discovered that there is a 'creator' but that it wasn't/isn't your chosen, so called 'God' and is nothing like your chosen, so-called 'God', would you discard your religious beliefs?

I would want to know that different God.

What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

Already addressed, and, to no one's surprise, ignored by you.

Design is a red herring.  What is needed is not evidence of design.
What is needed is sign of manufacture.

Designs are not self-implementing.
Many designs exist for things not built.
Many things are built for which there are not designs.

No argument to design can establish manufacture, and that is what is required.
Design is not a mechanism for producing anything other than designs.
You need more than that.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:12   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 18 2015,20:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 18 2015,20:28)
Isn't it fascinating how he links to his own ramblings and to peer-reviewed research he's never read as if he is making some kind of point.

It's almost cute.

Did you ever actually read that Nature article I asked you about (that YOU posted)? The one that actually has a completely different conclusion than the one that was given to you... I mean, that you developed.

He's also copied to his "library" a number of papers from Science and Nature in their entirety, in direct violation of their clearly spelled out copyright policy.

I wonder if we should drop a dime on him?   :p

LIAR AND A THIEF. Well done, Otangelo. The designer must be proud.  :D

--------------
"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: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:17   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,17:22)
...
The deity of the Abrahamic religions does not and cannot solve the problem of abiogenesis.
The god (or "God" if you prefer) of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not biologically alive.
Therefore, the problem remains untouched.
If abiogenesis is impossible, than god can't do it either, not being biologically alive.
If God is claimed to be biologically alive, then he rose from abiogenesis, or abiogenesis is possible and there is some prior 'process' which led to his life.
If God is not biologically alive (and he possesses none of the hallmarks of biologically living things), and he 'created' life, then we still have the problem of how.
Asserting it sans positive evidence does not solve the problem of how abiogenesis occurred.
Unless everything, literally, is alive, the problem remains how did life arise?
"Poof" is not an answer.

Otangelo, kindly address this argument.

It seems to me to be sufficient to dismiss any and all of your claims that abiogenesis is impossible.
Given that we have living things and we have non-living things, abiogenesis must have occurred.
You have no answer to the all-important question of 'how'.
It may be that naturalism does not have one either.
Naturalism, however, continues the search.
You stop at 'poof'.
That accomplishes nothing.
Creationism is, at its very best, a dead end.  The death of the mind.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:17   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:09)
Hey, its not about ME.

Again : what evidence do you expect to encounter in nature to infer design as the best explanation ?

The physical mechanisms used for manufacture, including how the raw materials were gathered and manipulated.

A timeline of when the manufacturing was done.

Location(s) of where the manufacturing was done.

The number of Designers.

Whether the Designers were cooperating or working at cross-purposes.

A method to determine the capabilities and limitations of the hypothesized Designer(s).

The motivation of the Designer(s)

A positive identification of the Designer(s).

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:19   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:01)
How is your argument anything other than "poof"?
How does 'God did it' a mechanism?

So, I challenge your assertion that I am misrepresenting your argument.  As it stands, I see no other argument being made.

As to 'a compelling case for naturalism', not my job.  You are attempting to make a case for the existence of, indeed, the necessity of, an alternative explanation.
I'm  challenging that, because no satisfactory case for any explanation, any explanatory mechanism, other than naturalism has ever been made.
As such, it is at the very least,  the default position.

If you want me to abandon it, you need to do much better than "I don't accept it".  I, on the other hand, do not.
That's how burden of proof works.
Neither I nor the other participants on this thread showed up at your doorstep, literally or figuratively, and began asserting that your position was wrong.
You, on the other hand, showed up here and began insisting that our position is wrong.
I, and others, have pointed out that your arguments are unsupportable.
You have failed to meet the challenges raised.

So stop misrepresenting what's going on here.

Quote
How is your argument anything other than "poof"?
How does 'God did it' a mechanism?


http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1794-h....=create

The causal power is intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent. Indeed, we have abundant experience in the present of intelligent agents generating specified information. Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents -- of "conscious activity" as "a cause now in operation"-- provides a basis for making inferences about the best explanation of the origin of all creation. It offers an alternative causal explanation involving a mental, rather than a necessarily or exclusively material, cause for the origin of  reality.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:20   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:09)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,11:20)
Quote
What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

Well how about a list?

1: You stop arguement from ignorance
2: You publish your findings in actual scientific peer reviewed journals that are reputable
3: You learn what words and things actually means so you can apply it properly
4: You stop putting the  cart before the horse

A good start

Hey, its not about ME.

Again : what evidence do you expect to encounter in nature to infer design as the best explanation ?

Design is not a mechanism.
Manufacture is a mechanism.

Evidence of design is not evidence of manufacture.
Nor is manufacture evidence of design.
As repeatedly noted.

How are made things distinguished from 'natural' things in the real world?
Not by evidence of design.  By evidence of manufacture.
There is no evidence of non-natural manufacture of anything.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:21   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:19)
The causal power is intelligence. Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent.

Intelligence alone can't physically manipulate matter.  You need a physical mechanism.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:22   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:17)
Given that we have living things and we have non-living things, abiogenesis must have occurred.

Nice strawman. We have exactly TWO possibilites of causes that can explain our origins. naturalism, and creationism. So IF a creator is the causal agent, abiogenesis is not. So there is no reaso to claim a MUST.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:24   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:20)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:09)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,11:20)
 
Quote
What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

Well how about a list?

1: You stop arguement from ignorance
2: You publish your findings in actual scientific peer reviewed journals that are reputable
3: You learn what words and things actually means so you can apply it properly
4: You stop putting the  cart before the horse

A good start

Hey, its not about ME.

Again : what evidence do you expect to encounter in nature to infer design as the best explanation ?

Design is not a mechanism.
Manufacture is a mechanism.

Evidence of design is not evidence of manufacture.
Nor is manufacture evidence of design.
As repeatedly noted.

How are made things distinguished from 'natural' things in the real world?
Not by evidence of design.  By evidence of manufacture.
There is no evidence of non-natural manufacture of anything.

Design is the prerequisite. through a mental process you create, design, invent, imagine, project given artifact. And through power you materialize that project. My profession is machine designer, and i know EXACTLY how that works.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:26   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 18 2015,10:54)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 18 2015,12:23)
Why is abiogenesis impossible?

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

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.

I can cut and paste too!

From my blog article, "A short outline of the origin of life"

Chirility

Pasteur discovered that most amino acids came in two forms which can be identified by how they refract light. We label theses L- (for levo or left) and D- (for dextro, or right). The interesting thing is that life on Earth uses the L form of amino acids, and hardly ever uses the D- form. A solution of just one form is called "chiral" and a mix of forms about 50/50 is called racimic. The kinds (L or D) are called enantomers.

The nucleic acid bases are organized along a sugar backbone. I mentioned earlier that these sugars are also found in L- and D- forms, only in this case life on Earth only uses the D- form.

Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct. I want to mention a neat instance where both left and right amino acids are used in a living thing. It is very rare, but it does happen. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirality "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids.

Before we go forward another couple of basic chemical facts need to be added to the discussion. First, L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racemization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racemization can be very slow. Very, very slow.

This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form. The advantage comes from a surprising direction: outer space.

Cronin, J. R. & Pizzarello, S.,
1999. Amino acid enantomer excesses in meteorites: Origin and significance. Advances in Space Research 23(2): 293-299.

Service, RF,
1999. Does life's handedness come from within? Science 286: 1282-1283.

Antonio Chrysostomou, T. M. Gledhill,1 François Ménard, J. H. Hough, Motohide
Tamura and Jeremy Bailey
2000 "Polarimetry of young stellar objects -III. Circular polarimetry of OMC-1" Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Volume 312 Issue 1 Page 103 - February

Michael H. Engel and Bartholomew Nagy,
1982 "Distribution and Enantiomeric Composition of Amino Acids in the Murchison Meteorite", Nature , 296, April 29, , p. 838.

Jeremy Bailey, Antonio Chrysostomou, J. H. Hough, T. M. Gledhill, Alan McCall, Stuart Clark, François Ménard, and Motohide Tamura
1998 Circular Polarization in Star- Formation Regions: Implications for Biomolecular Homochirality Science 1998 July 31; 281: 672-674. (in Reports)

Chyba, Christopher F.
1997 Origins of life: A left-handed Solar System? Nature 389, 234- 235 (18 Sep 1997)

Engel, M. H., S. A. Macko
1997 Isotopic evidence for extraterrestrial non- racemic amino acids in the Murchison meteorite. Nature 389, 265 - 268 (18 Sep) Letters to Nature

That should do for that. The next question is can the advantage of L- amino acids be conserved in the formation of more complex molecules called "peptides?" Yep.

Schmidt, J. G., Nielsen, P. E. & Orgel, L. E. 1997 Enantiomeric cross-inhibition in the synthesis of oligonucleotides on a nonchiral template. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 119, 1494-1495

Saghatelion A, Yokobayashi Y, Soltani K,
Ghadiri MR,
2001"A chiroselective peptide replicator",
Nature 409: 797-51, Feb

Singleton, D A,& Vo, L K,
2002 “Enantioselective Synthsis without Discrete Optically Active Additives” J. Am. Chem. Soc. 124, 10010-10011

Yao Shao, Ghosh I, Zutshi R, Chmielewski J.
1998 Selective amplification by auto- and cross-catalysis in a replicating peptide system. Nature. Dec 3;396(6710):447-50.

And there seems to be other L- selction advantages as well. For example:

Hazen, R.M., T.R. Filley, and G.A. Goodfriend.
2001. Selective adsorption of L- and D-amino acids on calcite: Implications for biochemical homochirality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98(May 8):5487.

So chirality doesn't seem to be a big problem. This is far different from the way creationists present this. They cite a few out of date reports and then falsely claim that chiral life is impossible by natural means.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 19 2015,10:29

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:27   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:12)
What is needed is sign of manufacture.

So you adopt a double standard. In order to believe that non intelligent mechanisms caused everything into being, you do not require empirical proof. But in regard of a creator , you require a sign of manufacture. Well, my friend, as far as i checked, a time machine has not yet been invented......

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:27   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:24)
Design is the prerequisite. through a mental process you create, design, invent, imagine, project given artifact. And through power you materialize that project. My profession is machine designer, and i know EXACTLY how that works.

Then you're an idiot or you know mental designs don't turn into physical objects unless they're manufactured somehow.

How did DNA and life get manufactured?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:29   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:27)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:12)
What is needed is sign of manufacture.

So you adopt a double standard. In order to believe that non intelligent mechanisms caused everything into being, you do not require empirical proof. But in regard of a creator , you require a sign of manufacture. Well, my friend, as far as i checked, a time machine has not yet been invented......

We have empirical evidence of the non-intelligent mechanisms still at work today.

What physical mechanisms did your Designer employ?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Otangelo



Posts: 149
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:30   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 19 2015,12:26)
Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct.

Sorry, but not only creationists have recognized this problem.



Homochirality

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1309-h....irality

http://labquimica.files.wordpress.com/2011....dad.pdf
The origin of the homochirality of amino acids is still an unsolved issue. There must have been a definite process to ensure that the sequence-based mechanism functioned in the RNA world. Future experiments will provide insights regarding the basis using which this mystery can be solved.


http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.p....l_World
Enantiomers are molecules that are mirror-images of each other. Today, amino acids and sugars exist in only one enantiomeric form in most biological systems on earth. This homochirality remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries to scientists.


http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspre....a11.htm
However, the question of the origin of biological homochirality remains as yet unanswered.


http://origins.harvard.edu/event....irality
left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template.


http://www.teknoscienze.com/Article....17Qucvk

Several mechanisms have been proposed for elucidating the origins of the chirality of organic compounds, such as circularly polarized light (CPL) (3) and quartz (4); however, a suitable amplification process for chirality is required to reach single-handedness of biological compounds (biological homochirality)

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:39   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:30)
 
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 19 2015,12:26)
Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct.

Sorry, but not only creationists have recognized this problem.

http://origins.harvard.edu/event......irality
left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template.

LOL!  Gotta love the idiot Creationist who shoots himself in the foot.  This is the whole abstract for the Harvard research he just quoted above

"The property of chirality has fascinated scientists and laymen alike since Pasteur’s first painstaking separation of the enantiomorphic crystals of a tartrate salt over 150 years ago. Chiral molecules – nonsuperimposable forms that are mirror images of one another, as are left and right hands – in living organisms in Nature exist almost exclusively as single enantiomers, as exemplified by D-sugars and L-amino acids. Single chirality is critical for molecular recognition and replication processes and would thus seem to be a a signature of life. Yet left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template. Our work has led to the development of several plausible mechanisms for how one enantiomer might have come to dominate over the other in the prebiotic world, highlighting mechanisms for enantioenrichment by either chemical or physical processes"

Own goal for Otangelo!  :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:43   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:08)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,11:19)
 
Quote
Why should i ? the case is totally obvious to any person of average intelligence and even shallow understanding of the requirements for life to start, your demand is futile.

You'd save the scientific community lots of work because they apperently disagree with you vastely on just about every point. If you can produce real evidence they would stop wasting time.

They disagree based on what evidence, exactly ?

2 lists of peer reviewed scientific research into evolution and abiogensesis

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....fs.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....erences

Now cite 1 single peer reviewed one that says that design must have occured at anytime anywhere from a reputable journal.

  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:47   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,12:30)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 19 2015,12:26)
Creationists like to present this as a profound mystery that is supposed to "prove" that they are correct.

Sorry, but not only creationists have recognized this problem.



Homochirality

http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1309-h....irality

http://labquimica.files.wordpress.com/2011.......dad.pdf
The origin of the homochirality of amino acids is still an unsolved issue. There must have been a definite process to ensure that the sequence-based mechanism functioned in the RNA world. Future experiments will provide insights regarding the basis using which this mystery can be solved.


http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.p....l_World
Enantiomers are molecules that are mirror-images of each other. Today, amino acids and sugars exist in only one enantiomeric form in most biological systems on earth. This homochirality remains one of the greatest unsolved mysteries to scientists.


http://www.cnrs.fr/Cnrspre....a11.htm
However, the question of the origin of biological homochirality remains as yet unanswered.


http://origins.harvard.edu/event......irality
left and right-handed molecules of a compound will form in equal amounts (a racemic mixture) when we synthesize them in the laboratory in the absence of some type of directing template.


[URL=http://www.teknoscienze.com/Articles/Chimica-Oggi-Chemistry-Today-Asymmetric-autocatalysis-Pathway-to-the-biological-homochiral

ity.aspx#.UqvM17Qucvk]http://www.teknoscienze.com/Article....17Qucvk[/URL]

Several mechanisms have been proposed for elucidating the origins of the chirality of organic compounds, such as circularly polarized light (CPL) (3) and quartz (4); however, a suitable amplification process for chirality is required to reach single-handedness of biological compounds (biological homochirality)

I'll point out that "not solved" does not mean "therefore creator and designed", that is fallacious reasoning. It simply means it is not solved.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:50   

There are additional articles related to chiral AAs and nucleotides, of course. Some also over lap with the formation of ribose as well;

Vázquez-Mayagoitia Á, Horton SR, Sumpter BG, Šponer J, Šponer JE, Fuentes-Cabrera M.
2011 "On the stabilization of ribose by silicate minerals" Astrobiology. 2011 Mar;11(2):115-21. doi: 10.1089/ast.2010.0508.

Springsteen G, Joyce GF.
2004 "Selective derivatization and sequestration of ribose from a prebiotic mix" J Am Chem Soc. 2004 Aug 11;126(31):9578-83

Matthew W. Powner, Béatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland,
2006 "Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions" Nature 459, 239-242 (14 May 2009)

Ronald Breslow, Zhan-Ling Cheng
2009 "On the origin of terrestrial homochirality for nucleosides and amino acids" PNAS June 9, 2009 vol. 106 no. 23 9144-9146

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,12:54   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 19 2015,10:39)
LOL!  Gotta love the idiot Creationist who shoots himself in the foot.  

Otangelo cannot actually understand anything that he posts, or anything we reply.

My guess is that he just used Goggle and picked the first articles he sees with some words from our posts, and the word "problem" or "unknown."

The CNRS-Max Planck Institute of Stuttgart press release from 2000 referred to an idea, magnetochiral anisotropy, that didn't work out well.

One interesting paper I had not read before was;

Tamura, Koji
“Origin of amino acid homochirality: Relationship with the RNA world and origin of tRNA aminoacylation” BioSystems 92 (2008) 91–98


The other citations Chewtoy offered were either contradicting his assertions, or irrelevant.

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 19 2015,11:16

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:11   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 19 2015,12:54)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 19 2015,10:39)
LOL!  Gotta love the idiot Creationist who shoots himself in the foot.  

Otangelo cannot actually understand anything that he posts, or anything we reply.

My guess is that he just used Goggle and picked the first articles he sees with some words from our posts, and the word "problem" or "unknown."

Or Denyse O'Learying as it's known.

--------------
"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: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:13   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:19)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:01)
How is your argument anything other than "poof"?
How does 'God did it' a mechanism?

So, I challenge your assertion that I am misrepresenting your argument.  As it stands, I see no other argument being made.

As to 'a compelling case for naturalism', not my job.  You are attempting to make a case for the existence of, indeed, the necessity of, an alternative explanation.
I'm  challenging that, because no satisfactory case for any explanation, any explanatory mechanism, other than naturalism has ever been made.
As such, it is at the very least,  the default position.

If you want me to abandon it, you need to do much better than "I don't accept it".  I, on the other hand, do not.
That's how burden of proof works.
Neither I nor the other participants on this thread showed up at your doorstep, literally or figuratively, and began asserting that your position was wrong.
You, on the other hand, showed up here and began insisting that our position is wrong.
I, and others, have pointed out that your arguments are unsupportable.
You have failed to meet the challenges raised.

So stop misrepresenting what's going on here.

 
Quote
How is your argument anything other than "poof"?
How does 'God did it' a mechanism?


[URL=http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1794-how-exactly-did-god-create-the-universe-and-the-world-what-process-was-involved?high



light=create]http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1794-h....=create[/URL]

The causal power is intelligence.

Intelligence is not a cause as such.  Intelligence is a broad descriptive term for a variety of acts, poorly specified (at best).  Insofar as we are talking consciousness, it can provide motivation, but it is not a cause.
 
Quote
Conscious activity. The deliberate choice of a rational agent.

In and of themselves, these lack causal efficacy.
Consider the case of the quadriplegic, who lacks all motor ability from the neck down.
He can still engage in conscious activity.  He can still make deliberate choices.
He cannot act.  He has no causal efficacy by virtue of his intelligence nor by virtue of his consciousness.
 
Quote
Indeed, we have abundant experience in the present of intelligent agents generating specified information.

'Specified information' is either redundant or meaningless.
In it usual usage (by the ID crowd), I reject it as meaningless, for it is strictly ad hoc, post hoc, unquantifiable, and useless.  It has no explanatory power.  Worse, it has no discriminatory power -- you have to know something is 'specified information' before you can decide that it counts as specified information.  It is the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy in the extreme.
 
Quote
Our experience of the causal powers of intelligent agents -- of "conscious activity" as "a cause now in operation"

You confuse  'cause' and 'motivation'.  They are distinct and different.  Precision of terminology matters, very very much.
In particular, I hold that 'cause' is material agency.  In all cases we can identify clearly, cause is matter interacting with matter.
 
Quote
-- provides a basis for making inferences about the best explanation of the origin of all creation.

Unsupported assertion that amounts to begging the question.
All intelligence we know, without exception, is bodily, it is embodied.
We only know intelligence through interaction with matter.
Therefore, all we can infer about 'best explanation' is that matter is involved in both cause and  effect.
Thus, we can infer that no disembodied intelligence exists, or if it does exist, it is indistinguishable from an unconscious being or a totally paralyzed person.
Quote
It offers an alternative causal explanation involving a mental, rather than a necessarily or exclusively material, cause for the origin of  reality.

No, it does not, because it cherry-picks the evidence out of the phenomena presented.
Consult M. Merleau-Ponty for one amongst countless discourses on the bodily grounding of intelligent being.

You are assuming your conclusion.
You need to establish the truth of your grounds before they become shared grounds for discussion.
I reject them, for the evidentiary reasons presented.
You've presented no evidence or reason  to accept either disembodied intelligence nor disembodied or non-material cause.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:17   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:22)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:17)
Given that we have living things and we have non-living things, abiogenesis must have occurred.

Nice strawman. We have exactly TWO possibilites of causes that can explain our origins. naturalism, and creationism. So IF a creator is the causal agent, abiogenesis is not. So there is no reaso to claim a MUST.

NO.  You are assuming your conclusion.
I am arguing that we do not, in fact, have two possibilities.
We have only one -- naturalism.
No other "possibility" has ever been shown to be actually possible.
I reject the claim.

Further, as I have laid out, and as you persist in not addressing, we have the problem of how non-living matter becomes alive, regardless of whether we take recourse to a creator or not.
Either the creator is biologically alive, in which case the problem merely recedes one level, or the creator somehow caused non-living matter to become alive.
In both cases, we have the problem of how it was done.
"Poof" is not an explanation.
You keep insisting you are not arguing for 'poof'.  I keep pointing out that aside from question-begging and assuming your conclusions as premises in your argument, it is all your argument comes down to.
We still lack a mechanism.
Absent a mechanism, we haven't answered the 'how'.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:22   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:24)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:20)
Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:09)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 19 2015,11:20)
 
Quote
What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

Well how about a list?

1: You stop arguement from ignorance
2: You publish your findings in actual scientific peer reviewed journals that are reputable
3: You learn what words and things actually means so you can apply it properly
4: You stop putting the  cart before the horse

A good start

Hey, its not about ME.

Again : what evidence do you expect to encounter in nature to infer design as the best explanation ?

Design is not a mechanism.
Manufacture is a mechanism.

Evidence of design is not evidence of manufacture.
Nor is manufacture evidence of design.
As repeatedly noted.

How are made things distinguished from 'natural' things in the real world?
Not by evidence of design.  By evidence of manufacture.
There is no evidence of non-natural manufacture of anything.

Design is the prerequisite. through a mental process you create, design, invent, imagine, project given artifact. And through power you materialize that project. My profession is machine designer, and i know EXACTLY how that works.

Only if you are not omnipotent.
No omnipotent  being need  ever design, for no omnipotent being need take refractory materials or processes into account.

Further, you are not addressing my argument.
Design is no guarantee of manufacture.
Manufacture is no guarantee of design.
We have massive amounts of evidence that this is true and no evidence at all that it is not.
From wheels to software, things that are not designed are made and from DaVinci's helicopters to software things are designed that are never made.

Argument from design is a cheap fraud.
It is an even bigger fraud when it is actually argument to design.
There is a great deal of equivocation in design talk.  
But regardless, design is not manufacture.
Design doesn't matter, for it tells us nothing much.  Except, of course, that if design is there, then the designer must not be omnipotent.  That's a strong sense of 'must'.
Design is not necessary for omnipotent beings, by definition.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:25   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 19 2015,11:11)
Or Denyse O'Learying as it's known.

:D

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:28   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,13:27)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,12:12)
What is needed is sign of manufacture.

So you adopt a double standard. In order to believe that non intelligent mechanisms caused everything into being, you do not require empirical proof. But in regard of a creator , you require a sign of manufacture. Well, my friend, as far as i checked, a time machine has not yet been invented......

That is starkly dishonest and you should know it.

My reasons for adopting the stance I adopt are strictly based on evidence.
I see nothing but natural explanations or the absence of an explanation.
I never see an explanation that is not natural.
I have all the empirical proof I needs.

I also have all the logical proof I need.  The natural world is eternal.  It has existed for all time.  A priori true, and totally unaffected by the possibility that there was a 'big bang'.
Recent cosmology suggests that the big bang may not mark a point-source origin of time nor of the universe as such.

I require a mechanism.
You have not provided one.
You have not supported the suggestion, let alone assertion, that there is one.

I have the evidence, empirical and logical.
You have prejudices.
Demonstrably.

And just by the way, I am not your friend.  I have standards and you do not meet them.  Your behavior has been demonstrably dishonest, consists largely of action and argument in bad faith, and your position is, in multiple ways, shameful.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:36   

More from my "Short outline,"

I want to mention a neat instance where both left and right amino acids are used in a living thing. It is very rare, but it does happen. Next time a creationist claims to be an "expert" and that amino acid chirality "proves" something supernatural, you can gob-smack-em. The protein is called Gramicidin A and it has 8 L-amino acids, 6 D-amino acids, and one glycine which is an amino acid that is neither L- or D- in its structure. I have found that even many biologists will bet an "adult beverage" that all proteins are exclusive L- amino acids.

Before we go forward another couple of basic chemical facts need to be added to the discussion. First, L- amino acids will randomly convert to D- amino acids over time, and D- forms will convert to L- forms. This is called "racemization" because eventually you will end up with equal amounts of L- and D- amino acids. The rate that this occurs at varies with the amino acid, and its surroundings. The fastest conversion happens to amino acid molecules all by themselves in hot water. Under cold, dry conditions when the amino acids are attached to one another, or better yet, if they are also attached to a mineral, racemization can be very slow. Very, very slow.

This means that if there is even a tiny advantage one way or the other, the favored form will become the dominant form.

There are larger arguments for a racemic origin of life.

Edward Trifonov (2004) confirmed two ideas, that the earliest amino acids were those easiest to form abiotically, that codons and aa's organized contemporaneously to form short ogliomers (what he didn't cite was the notion that oligomers can form spontaneously, are "selected" merely by being stable, and that RNAs (or Lacanzo and Miller's PNAs) imprint and replicate "successful" short peptides.) Trifonov wrote, "The amino-acid chronology itself is a quintessence of natural simplicity and opportunism: use first those amino acids that are available. When done with all codons, take from those amino acids that have too many."

The fact is that there are a growing list of short proteins with D- aa's, (most of the ones I know of are bacterial membrane components but there are also examples from yeasts to humans). Add to this, most bacteria have evolved enzymes that convert L-aa's to D-aa's for the same Miller/prebiotic amino acids. Again even we humans have enzymes to use D-aa's.


Trifonov, Edward N. 2004 "The Triplet Code From First Principles" Journal of Biomolecular Structure & Dynamics, ISSN 0739-1102 Volume 22, Issue Number 1,

Babbitt PC, Mrachko GT, Hasson MS, Huisman GW, Kolter R, Ringe D, Petsko GA, Kenyon GL, Gerlt JA.
1995 "A functionally diverse enzyme superfamily that abstracts the alpha protons of carboxylic acids." Science. 1995 Feb 24;267(5201):1159-61.

Nathalie Chamond, Maira Goytia, Nicolas Coatnoan, Jean-Christophe Barale, Alain Cosson, Wim M. Degrave and Paola Minoprio
2005 "Trypanosoma cruzi proline racemases are involved in parasite differentiation and infectivity." Molecular Microbiology Volume 58 Issue 1 Page 46 - October 2005

Alexander Jilek, Christa Mollay, Christa Tippelt, Jacques Grassi, Giuseppina Mignogna, Johannes Müllegger, Veronika Sander, Christine Fehrer, Donatella Barra and Günther Kreil
2005 "Biosynthesis of a D-amino acid in peptide linkage by an enzyme from frog skin secretions" Published online before print March 9, 2005, PNAS | March 22, 2005 | vol. 102 | no. 12 | 4235-4239

Yamashita, Tatsuyuki, Ashiuchi, Makoto, Ohnishi, Kouhei, Kato, Shin'ichiro, Nagata, Shinji & Misono, Haruo
2004 "Molecular identification of monomeric aspartate racemase from Bifidobacterium bifidum." European Journal of Biochemistry 271 (23-24), 4798-4803.

Ian G. Fotheringham, Stefan A. Bledig, and Paul P. Taylor
1998 "Characterization of the Genes Encoding D-Amino Acid Transaminase and Glutamate Racemase, Two D-Glutamate Biosynthetic Enzymes of Bacillus sphaericus ATCC 10208" Journal of Bacteriology, August 1998, p. 4319-4323, Vol. 180, No. 16

K. Y. Hwang, C.-S. Cho, S. S. Kim, K. Baek, S.-H. Kim, Y. G. Yu and Y. Cho
1999 "Crystallization and preliminary X-ray analysis of glutamate racemase from Aquifex pyrophilus, a hyperthermophilic bacterium" Acta Cryst. (1999). D55, 927-928

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:40   

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 19 2015,09:17)
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 19 2015,11:08)
If it were discovered that there is a 'creator' but that it wasn't/isn't your chosen, so called 'God' and is nothing like your chosen, so-called 'God', would you discard your religious beliefs?

I would want to know that different God.

What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?

I said a 'creator'. A 'creator' isn't necessarily a 'God'. And you didn't answer my questions. I didn't ask you if you'd want to get to know "that different God".

"What would convince you that design explains best our existence ?"

Why don't you be honest and say/ask what you actually believe and stop playing stupid, dishonest games with the "design" crap? The question that would be honest from you would be like this: What would convince you that the God I believe in, i.e. the Abrahamic, Christian God, specially created man in his image as it says in the Bible?

And to that question I would answer: Nothing would or could convince me of that.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2015,13:40   

Quote (NoName @ Nov. 19 2015,11:28)
I have the evidence, empirical and logical.
You have prejudices.
Demonstrably.

And just by the way, I am not your friend.  I have standards and you do not meet them.

:D :) :D :) :D

Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 19 2015,11:41

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

Pages: (17) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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