Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be science?

[Zzyzx]

.
Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be science?

Science is a systematic and logical approach to discovering how things in the universe work. It is derived from the Latin word scientia, which translates to knowledge. Unlike the arts, science aims for measurable results through testing and analysis. Science is based on fact, not opinion or preferences. The process of science is designed to challenge ideas through research. It is not meant to prove theories, but rule out alternative explanations until a likely conclusion is reached.

The scientific method

When conducting research, scientists observe the scientific method to collect measurable, empirical evidence in an experiment related to a hypothesis (often in the form of an if/then statement), the results aiming to support or contradict a theory.

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations.

Ask questions about the observations and gather information.

Form a hypothesis " a tentative description of whats been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.

Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.

Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.

Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable.

Research must involve deductive reasoning, not inductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion.

An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).

An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.
Scientific theories and laws

The scientific method and science in general can be frustrating. A theory is almost never proven. A few theories do become scientific laws (such as the law of gravity) and laws are generally considered to be without exception " though in fact even some laws have been modified over time after further testing found discrepancies.

This does not mean theories are not meaningful. For a hypothesis to become a theory, rigorous testing must occur, typically across multiple disciplines by separate groups of scientists. Saying something is just a theory is a lay persons term that has no relationship to science, because in science, a theory is something that is very well supported by observation and experimentation.

http://www.livescience.com/20896-scienc ... ethod.html

One can add to the steps: Publish methodology and conclusions for others to evaluate.

Thus, no pronouncement is entitled to call itself science unless it adheres to the Scientific Method " and conjecture based on unverifiable tales and offering nothing that can be tested does NOT qualify as a science.

Questions for debate:

1) Does Creationism (or "Intelligent Design") meet ANY of the requirements of science?

2) Is claiming to be science while not meeting the criteria a case of fraud (or at least false) claim?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 58 by Enoch2021]

What if I said.... it's possible 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula formed the precursors for RNA?

I would ask what evidence suggests that and examine the evidence.

from your above post.

Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false

you are not inferring it is true that 3 toed gnomes behind the crab nebula formed the precursors for RNA you are suggesting it is a possibility.

true
troo/Submit
adjective
1.
in accordance with fact or reality

you are not saying that 3 toed gnomes behind the crab nebula forming the precursors for RNA are true you are suggesting it is possible.

Instead if you want it to be an argument from ignorance you should change the wording.

"The precursors for RNA were created by 3 toed gnomes from behind the crab nebula, I have yet to see evidence disputing this claim therefore it must be true."

You have consistently demonstrated you don't understand the fallacies in which you are talking about.

[Enoch2021]

Did I say "patterns" or fractals? I said CODE---Software (They're mutually inclusive) as in Algorithmic Coding and Decoding Schemes.

Then no, I don't need to believe that to say there is no god. The word code implys a coder.

Yes you do...by proxy: You only have 2 Choices: either "Nature" Created the CODE or an Intelligent Agent did....

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

What's your Choice? Please provide support if it's "Nature"....?

Yes, thanks....I'll be more precise, The Argument is the Who/What: You only have 2 choices as to "How" we are here: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information; and the tenets of Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you?

The premise that nature can be ruled out laughably so, is false.

Ipse Dixit. How so......?

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy"the heat death of the universe.

That assumes the amount of usable energy was finite.

It's not an Assumption it's Based on the "Pillars of Science" The Laws of Thermodynamics.
Are you prepared to refute them?

In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?

As for your question, why are you assuming that there was something stopping mRNA during the evolution of the splicing mechanism?

Assuming? Stopping mRNA from doing what?

Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner.

That doesn't follow. Why do you think atoms needs to learn anything for trial and error?

Well what do you suppose happens in the Interim of your "trial and error" scenario?
Are you saying Stupid Atoms "Trial and Error" problem solve?

Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; Ergo...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup"synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?

Bingo!

Bingo? For "Natural Selection"? Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial. Are you giving Intelligent Attributes to a "Concept" sir?

Natural Selection a "Concept" is responsible; is Tantamount to....

The "Race for Space" (constructed) the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" (developed) the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" (Wrote) Beethoven's 9th.

Then there's this...

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology...

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

Any other Conjectures?

Can you start in the context of 2LOT then expand to include: Boyle's Gas Law, Jeans Mass, and the Law of the Conservation of Angular Momentum.....?

Sure, we have observed a number of interstellar phenomena that is the process of becoming stars re:sprotostars.

Observing "Light" from behind Clouds is not Observing Star Formation.... any more then Observing our Sun slowly appear through a Cloud deck here on Earth.

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." Sun And Stars, p.111

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Geoffrey Burbidge, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory; Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

Abraham Loeb, of Harvards Center for Astrophysics, says, The truth is that we dont understand star formation at a fundamental level.
Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26"30, 7 February 1998

Say What?? Can you point to "your" counter examples...?

I did that already: Me.

You offered nothing as this and my previous rebuttal to your initial post clearly shows.

regards

[Enoch2021]

"RNA synthesis and replication
The RNA world has spurred scientists to try to determine if RNA molecules could have spontaneously formed that were capable of catalyzing their own replication.[129][130][131] Evidences suggest chemical conditions (including the presence of boron, molybdenum and oxygen) for initially producing RNA molecules may have been better on the planet Mars than those on the planet Earth.[129][130] If so, life-suitable molecules, originating on Mars, may have later migrated to Earth via meteor ejections.[129][130]
A number of hypotheses of modes of formation have been put forward. As of 1994, there were difficulties in the abiotic synthesis of the nucleotides cytosine and uracil.[132] Subsequent research has shown possible routes of synthesis; for example, formamide produces all four ribonucleotides and other biological molecules when warmed in the presence of various terrestrial minerals.[87][88] Early cell membranes could have formed spontaneously from proteinoids, which are protein-like molecules produced when amino acid solutions are heated while in the correct concentration in aqueous solution. These are seen to form micro-spheres which are observed to behave similarly to membrane-enclosed compartments. Other possibilities include systems of chemical reactions that take place within clay substrates or on the surface of pyrite rocks.
Factors supportive of an important role for RNA in early life include its ability to act both to store information and to catalyze chemical reactions (as a ribozyme); its many important roles as an intermediate in the expression and maintenance of the genetic information (in the form of DNA) in modern organisms; and the ease of chemical synthesis of at least the components of the molecule under the conditions that approximated the early Earth. Relatively short RNA molecules have been artificially produced in labs, which are capable of replication.[133] Such replicase RNA, which functions as both code and catalyst provides its own template upon which copying can occur. Jack Szostak has shown that certain catalytic RNAs can, indeed, join smaller RNA sequences together, creating the potential, in the right conditions for self-replication. If these conditions were present, Darwinian selection would favour the proliferation of such autocatalytic sets, to which further functionalities could be added.[134] Lincoln and Joyce have identified such autocatalytic systems of RNA capable of self-sustained replication.[135] The systems, which include two ribozymes that catalyze each other's synthesis, replicated with doubling time of about one hour, and were subject to natural selection.[136] In evolutionary competition experiments, this led to the emergence of new systems which replicated more efficiently.[122] This was the first demonstration of evolutionary adaptation occurring in a molecular genetic system.[136]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesi ... eplication

A "wiki" source? Oh My, sir

If that is shorthand for "I don't believe anything on Wikipedia," I suggest you read the footnotes provided. There were 259 listed at that URL

Regarding RNA you could start with:

Copley, SD; Smith, E; Morowitz, HJ (2007). "The origin of the RNA world: co-evolution of genes and metabolism.". Bioorg Chem 35 (6): 430"43. doi:10.1016/j.bioorg.2007.08.001. PMID 17897696. "The proposal that life on Earth arose from an RNA World is widely accepted."
Orgel, LE (2003). "Some consequences of the RNA world hypothesis". Orig Life Evol Biosph 33 (2): 211"8. PMID 12967268. "It now seems very likely that our familiar DNA/RNA/protein world was preceded by an RNA world"
Robertson, MP; Joyce, GF (2012). "The origins of the RNA world". Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4 (5). doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a003608. PMC 3331698. PMID 20739415. "There is now strong evidence indicating that an RNA World did indeed exist before DNA- and protein-based life."
Neveu, M; Kim, HJ; Benner, SA (2013). "The "strong" RNA world hypothesis: fifty years old". Astrobiology 13 (4): 391"403. doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0868. PMID 23551238."[The RNA world's existence] has broad support within the community today."
^ Jump up to: a b c Robertson, MP; Joyce, GF (2012). "The origins of the RNA world". Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4 (5). doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a003608. PMC 3331698. PMID 20739415.
^ Jump up to: a b c Cech, TR (2012). "The RNA worlds in context.". Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4 (7): a006742. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a006742. PMC 3385955. PMID 21441585.
Jump up ^ Yarus, M (2011). "Getting past the RNA world: the initial Darwinian ancestor". Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 3 (4). doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a003590. PMC 3062219. PMID 20719875.
Jump up ^ Neveu, M; Kim, HJ; Benner, SA (2013). "The "strong" RNA world hypothesis: fifty years old". Astrobiology 13 (4): 391"403. doi:10.1089/ast.2012.0868. PMID 23551238.
Jump up ^ Gilbert, Walter (20 February 1986). "Origin of life: The RNA world". Nature 319 (6055): 618"618. Bibcode:1986Natur.319..618G. doi:10.1038/319618a0.
Jump up ^ Noller, HF (2012). "Evolution of protein synthesis from an RNA world.". Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol 4 (4): a003681. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a003681. PMC 3312679. PMID 20610545.
^ Jump up to: a b Koonin, Eugene V. (31 May 2007). "The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life". Biol. Direct (2). p. 15. doi:10.1186/1745-6150-2-15. PMC 1892545.
^ Jump up to: a b c Zimmer, Carl (12 September 2013). "A Far-Flung Possibility for the Origin of Life". New York Times.
^ Jump up to: a b c Webb, Richard (29 August 2013). "Primordial broth of life was a dry Martian cup-a-soup". New Scientist.
Jump up ^ Ma, W; Yu, C; Zhang, W; Hu, J (November 2007). "Nucleotide synthetase ribozymes may have emerged first in the RNA world". RNA 13 (11): 2012"9. doi:10.1261/rna.658507. PMC 2040096. PMID 17878321.
Orgel, L. (1994). "The origin of life on Earth". Scientific American 271 (4): 81. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1094-76. PMID 7524147.
Jump up ^ Johnston, W. K. et al. (2001). "RNA-Catalyzed RNA Polymerization: Accurate and General RNA-Templated Primer Extension". Science 292 (5520): 1319"25. Bibcode:2001Sci...292.1319J. doi:10.1126/science.1060786. PMID 11358999.
Jump up ^ Szostak, Jack W. (4 June 2008). "The Origins of Function in Biological Nucleic Acids, Proteins, and Membranes". HHMI.
Jump up ^ Lincoln, Tracey A.; Joyce, Gerald F. (8 January 2009). "Self-Sustained Replication of an RNA Enzyme". Science 323 (5918): 1229"32. Bibcode:2009Sci...323.1229L. doi:10.1126/science.1167856. PMC 2652413. PMID 19131595.
^ Jump up to: a b Joyce, GF (2009). "Evolution in an RNA world.". Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 74: 17"23. doi:10.1101/sqb.2009.74.004. PMC 2891321. PMID 19667013.

Here's a free abstract of just the first source provided:
Abstract
Discoveries demonstrating that RNA can serve genetic, catalytic, structural, and regulatory roles have provided strong support for the existence of an RNA World that preceded the origin of life as we know it. Despite the appeal of this idea, it has been difficult to explain how macromolecular RNAs emerged from small molecules available on the early Earth. We propose here a mechanism by which mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner. This model suggests that many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated.

and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World

Isn't RNA....Nucleic Acids? So the "mechanism" and "replication template" arose before Nucleic Acids, eh? lol Like Steaks appearing before Cows?

Go ahead and show.....? This is story telling...."Just So" Stories. After the RNA World collapsed in the 90's it has led to all manner of Blind Conjectures.

Post the: "Study Methods and Design" to your "conjecture" here. Wait One, I'll get the Louisville Slugger....OK Ready! I'm goin "YARD"!! And callin my shot: "The Babe Enoch2021"!

Do you know what Science is? Is this article "Science"?

Please Define:

Scientific Hypothesis.....?
Scientific Theory....?

regards

[Danmark]

Discoveries demonstrating that RNA can serve genetic, catalytic, structural, and regulatory roles have provided strong support for the existence of an RNA World that preceded the origin of life as we know it. Despite the appeal of this idea, it has been difficult to explain how macromolecular RNAs emerged from small molecules available on the early Earth. We propose here a mechanism by which mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner. This model suggests that many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated.

and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World

Isn't RNA....Nucleic Acids? So the "mechanism" and "replication template" arose before Nucleic Acids, eh? lol Like Steaks appearing before Cows?

Go ahead and show.....? This is story telling...."Just So" Stories. After the RNA World collapsed in the 90's it has led to all manner of Blind Conjectures.

Post the: "Study Methods and Design" to your "conjecture" here. Wait One, I'll get the Louisville Slugger....OK Ready! I'm goin "YARD"!! And callin my shot: "The Babe Enoch2021"!

Do you know what Science is? Is this article "Science"?

Please Define:

Scientific Hypothesis.....?
Scientific Theory....?

regards

Don't you get tired of displaying the apparent fact you don't have the slightest inkling about science and about what has been presented to you? Or do you take comfort in appearing oblivious to your apparent ignorance of these subjects?

I apologize for being so blunt, but your responses never suggest you've understood what has been posted. Instead, they spit out, as if by reflex:

Two word questions and exclamations of logical fallacies with no indication whatsoever you know what you are talking about. Before you declare an idea, theory, or fact unbelievable or unsupportable, I suggest you demonstrate you at least understand what the claim is.

Until you can do that, genuine dialogue is impossible.

[Enoch2021]

Discoveries demonstrating that RNA can serve genetic, catalytic, structural, and regulatory roles have provided strong support for the existence of an RNA World that preceded the origin of life as we know it. Despite the appeal of this idea, it has been difficult to explain how macromolecular RNAs emerged from small molecules available on the early Earth. We propose here a mechanism by which mutual catalysis in a pre-biotic network initiated a progression of stages characterized by ever larger and more effective catalysts supporting a proto-metabolic network, and the emergence of RNA as the dominant macromolecule due to its ability to both catalyze chemical reactions and to be copied in a template-directed manner. This model suggests that many features of modern life, including the biosynthetic pathways leading to simple metabolites, the structures of organic and metal ion cofactors, homochirality, and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World and were retained as pre-biotic systems became more sophisticated.

and template-directed replication of nucleic acids, arose long before the RNA World

Isn't RNA....Nucleic Acids? So the "mechanism" and "replication template" arose before Nucleic Acids, eh? lol Like Steaks appearing before Cows?

Go ahead and show.....? This is story telling...."Just So" Stories. After the RNA World collapsed in the 90's it has led to all manner of Blind Conjectures.

Post the: "Study Methods and Design" to your "conjecture" here. Wait One, I'll get the Louisville Slugger....OK Ready! I'm goin "YARD"!! And callin my shot: "The Babe Enoch2021"!

Do you know what Science is? Is this article "Science"?

Please Define:

Scientific Hypothesis.....?
Scientific Theory....?

regards

Don't you get tired of displaying the apparent fact you don't have the slightest inkling about science and about what has been presented to you?

Feebly contrived Baseless Assertions (Fallacy). Just with a cursory review of your rebuttals, it's readily apparent....you're a "wiki" google scientist and can't speak to even Formica deep aspects of anything you post sir.

Or do you take comfort in appearing oblivious to your apparent ignorance of these subjects?

Another in a Myriad of Baseless Assertion (Fallacies). Post a "Specific" for instance....?

I apologize for being so blunt, but your responses never suggest you've understood what has been posted. Instead, they spit out, as if by reflex:

As long as you can SUPPORT your "blunt" statements I have no issue with it. I can't remember a single cogently supported rebuttal to anything you've posted.

Two word questions and exclamations of logical fallacies with no indication whatsoever you know what you are talking about. Before you declare an idea, theory, or fact unbelievable or unsupportable, I suggest you demonstrate you at least understand what the claim is.
Until you can do that, genuine dialogue is impossible.

Translation: I can't support what I say, so I'll conjure up some Generalized Baseless Assertions to "Last Port In The Storm" my way out and exit stage left, under spurious pretenses.

Yes, I've already asked you quite a number of times to simply define:

Scientific Hypothesis....?
Scientific Theory.....?

Each and every time, crickets. Because when you actually do....You Know ALL Too WELL that I'm taking: evolution, big bangs, multiverses, dark matter/energy...ad nauseam, to the Woodshed and Bludgeoning them Senseless!!

The Logical Fallacies that are employed by you and your Cohorts are Prima Facie...if/when you need them defined and connected to your examples just let me know.

regards

[Danmark]

As long as you can SUPPORT your "blunt" statements I have no issue with it. I can't remember a single cogently supported rebuttal to anything you've posted.

NOW we are in agreement. Thank you.

[rookiebatman]

Yes, I've already asked you quite a number of times to simply define:

Scientific Hypothesis....?
Scientific Theory.....?

Each and every time, crickets.

On the other hand, we asked you the following:

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observe a Phenomenon
Step 2: Lit Review
Step 3: Hypothesis
Step 4: TEST/EXPERIMENT
Step 5: Analyze Data
Step 6: Valid/Invalid Hypothesis
Step 7: Report Results

Does YEC use this? Last I checked it did not. I will await a response and debate that rather than evolution within this thread. You can also feel free to create a separate thread on evolution.

I too would like to hear an explanation of how YEC handles each of these individual steps. My perception of YEC, as admitted on answersingenesis.org, is that they start from the conclusion and works backwards (which, in my understanding, is the exact opposite of the scientific method).

Seems to me I'm hearing those same cricket noises. So does that mean that your beliefs also need to be taken behind the woodshed and bludgeoned senseless, or does it rather mean that Argument from Silence is yet another (Fallacy)?

[Bust Nak]

Yes you do...by proxy: You only have 2 Choices: either "Nature" Created the CODE or an Intelligent Agent did....

What's your Choice? Please provide support if it's "Nature"....?

I already told you I chose nature. It's just didn't write any code of the sort you suggested.

Ipse Dixit. How so......?

You'll have to ask yourself that, why couldn't you rule out nature? I am just making an observation here.

It's not an Assumption it's Based on the "Pillars of Science" The Laws of Thermodynamics.
Are you prepared to refute them?

Incorrect, none of the laws of thermodynamic demand a finite amount of usable energy.

Assuming? Stopping mRNA from doing what?

It was your own question: you said "transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm" remember?

Well what do you suppose happens in the Interim of your "trial and error" scenario?

Don't understand what you are asking here? What do you think trial and error means if not having trials and making error? What's this interim you had in mind?

Are you saying Stupid Atoms "Trial and Error" problem solve?

Of course.

Bingo? For "Natural Selection"? Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial. Are you giving Intelligent Attributes to a "Concept" sir?

Of course not, I am giving credit to the nature processes that natural Selection describes. The same way gravity is responsible for falling even though gravity is just a concept. Also I am not giving intelligent attributes to anything here, I am saying it does not require intelligence.

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology...

Sure, natural selection is just an umbella term, the same goes for any number of terms like "trial and error" what of it?

Any other Conjectures?

Why would I need any?

Observing "Light" from behind Clouds is not Observing Star Formation.... any more then Observing our Sun slowly appear through a Cloud deck here on Earth.

You seem to have a problem with science itself (or perharps just cosmology.) Observing light from behind clouds IS observing stat formation.

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." Sun And Stars, p.111

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Geoffrey Burbidge, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory; Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

Abraham Loeb, of Harvards Center for Astrophysics, says, The truth is that we dont understand star formation at a fundamental level.
Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26"30, 7 February 1998

Sure, cosmology is hard and we don't understand much, what of it?

You offered nothing as this and my previous rebuttal to your initial post clearly shows.

Ironically thing to say for someone who calls "Ipse Dixit." I need not offer anything more than one counter-example to refute an absolute statement.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 10 by whatsit]

Depends on type of knowledge. This I would agree with entirely 100% but depends on fields of study it is, yes. Can science disprove spirituality no and I personally hope it never does, yet to disregard certain facts and fight them based on faith no this I do not agree. One I would never stand outside a Church yelling at religious people, but I have been yelled at by so many theist it is not even funny. Do not get me wrong an *hole is a *hole religious or not. Instance my brother is gay and experiences this often by zealots , yet he is one of the most giving and honest persons I know, he treats everyone as if family yet is accosted based on some else's ideology. Everyone who comes in contact with him if of open mind leaves happy by his spirit, he is honestly one of my heroes. Only a real loving person can face that and still not be jaded.

[Enoch2021]

Yes you do...by proxy: You only have 2 Choices: either "Nature" Created the CODE or an Intelligent Agent did....


What's your Choice? Please provide support if it's "Nature"....?

I already told you I chose nature. It's just didn't write any code of the sort you suggested.

And.... Support? You need to show Stupid Atoms creating Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes? In other words, Ink Molecules Authoring Books, for starters....?

Ipse Dixit. How so......?

You'll have to ask yourself that, why couldn't you rule out nature? I am just making an observation here.

I can rule "nature" out much the same way as I can rule out the pixels and your keyboard colluding then constructing this post ("CODE"--- Language) that you sent to me.

It's not an Assumption it's Based on the "Pillars of Science" The Laws of Thermodynamics.
Are you prepared to refute them?
Incorrect, none of the laws of thermodynamic demand a finite amount of usable energy.

What in the World sir?

1st Law: The total amount of mass-energy in the universe is constant.
2nd Law: The amount of energy available for work is running out, and the Universe is moving inexorably to "Maximum Entropy" or Heat Death.

If the total amount of mass-energy is constant, and the amount of usable energy is decreasing, then the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would already have exhausted all usable energy"the heat death of the universe.

Is there something here that's particularly confusing?

Assuming? Stopping mRNA from doing what?


It was your own question: you said "transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm" remember?

Well ahhh sir, in Prokaryotes you don't have a Nucleus....it's all Cytoplasm. Transcription and TRANSLATION occur simultaneously. Do you know what a CELL is?

Well what do you suppose happens in the Interim of your "trial and error" scenario?


Don't understand what you are asking here? What do you think trial and error means if not having trials and making error? What's this interim you had in mind?

Firstly, Trial and Error "problem solving" requires Sentience and Intelligence.

The Interim...well, you have to continue to make "FUNCTIONAL" Proteins or the Cell will Vapor Lock....i.e., Die. It's a stumbling block for "Change".

Are you saying Stupid Atoms "Trial and Error" problem solve?


Of course.

Bingo? For "Natural Selection"? Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial. Are you giving Intelligent Attributes to a "Concept" sir?


Of course not, I am giving credit to the nature processes that natural Selection describes. The same way gravity is responsible for falling even though gravity is just a concept. Also I am not giving intelligent attributes to anything here, I am saying it does not require intelligence.

Ahhh, Yes you are. What Natural Processes does Natural Selection describe? (And btw, Natural Selection doesn't "describe"...it has no vocal chords and it's not alive; ergo, Reification Fallacy) Are you saying that because we have the Law of Gravity that Stupid Atoms will "Re-Wire" Prokaryotes..... to Eukaryotes?

Mechanisms please.....?

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology...

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200


Sure, natural selection is just an umbella term, the same goes for any number of terms like "trial and error" what of it?

Read Professor Provine real close...especially the "BOLDED" Part.

Then you have these...

Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)...

Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."

aka: Begging The Question(FALLACY)

"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)

Any other Conjectures?


Why would I need any?

Agreed, you already have a Metric Ton.

Observing "Light" from behind Clouds is not Observing Star Formation.... any more then Observing our Sun slowly appear through a Cloud deck here on Earth.

You seem to have a problem with science itself (or perharps just cosmology.)

Yes, I have a BIG PROBLEMS with Pseudo-Science...

Cosmology may look like a science, but it isnt a science. A basic tenet of science is that you can do repeatable experiments, and you cant do that in cosmology.
Gunn, J., cited in: Cho, Adrian, A singular conundrum: How odd is our universe? Science 3171848"1850, 2007.

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." Sun And Stars, p.111

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."
Geoffrey Burbidge, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory; Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

Abraham Loeb, of Harvards Center for Astrophysics, says, The truth is that we dont understand star formation at a fundamental level.
Let there be light, New Scientist 157(2120):26"30, 7 February 1998


Sure, cosmology is hard and we don't understand much, what of it?

Other than it's Pseudo-Science and "Just So" Stories....not much.

You offered nothing as this and my previous rebuttal to your initial post clearly shows.

Yes, the: Walking on the North Shore of Hawaii and exclaiming, "What Ocean!" scenario, eh?


regards