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

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25141
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 55 times
Been thanked: 93 times

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

Post #1

Post by 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?
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
wiploc
Guru
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2014 12:26 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #51

Post by wiploc »

Enoch2021 wrote: To say "No GOD", you MUST believe (short list):
To say, "Yes god," you MUST believe:


1. Stupid Atoms can write their own CODE/Software.
Gods can write their own personalities.


2. Life comes from Non-Life "Naturally".
Life (gods) come from non-life naturally.


3. The Universe created itself from Nothing; Ergo, existed prior to it's existence.
Gods create themselves from nothing; ergo, they existed before they existed.


4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (If given enough TIME).
Nothingness can turn into giraffes if given enough magic.


5. Planets and Stars coalescing from Gas and Debris.
Talking bushes. Omnipotent beings that can't defeat iron chariots.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #52

Post by Bust Nak »

Enoch2021 wrote: Do you have a cogent substantive argument to justify these...

To say "No GOD", you MUST believe (short list):

1. Stupid Atoms can write their own CODE/Software.
Assuming you meant patterns can arise without intelligent input, sure I believe that, I've seen it with my own eyes.
2. Life comes from Non-Life "Naturally".
There was no life on Earth, and now there is. It's easy to believe life came from non-life.
3. The Universe created itself from Nothing; Ergo, existed prior to it's existence.
I don't have to believe that to not believe in any gods. The universe could be eternal, or been generated from non intelligent means.
4. Bacteria can turn into Giraffes (If given enough TIME).
Assuming you meant evolution, sure we have empirical evidence to back that up.
5. Planets and Stars coalescing from Gas and Debris.
We have empirical evidence to back that up too.
all the while Directly Violating:

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Law of Cause and Effect
False by counter example. I have justified the belief of no gods without violating any of those.

Enoch2021
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:55 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #53

Post by Enoch2021 »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 47 by Enoch2021]

Quote:
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. If so, life-suitable molecules, originating on Mars, may have later migrated to Earth via meteor ejections.


Are you serious? Argument From Ignorance (Fallacy).
I am not sure you know what an Argument from Ignorance fallacy actually is. ....
saying something is plausible probable or possible is not an argument from ignorance.
Argument from Ignorance--- Arguments from ignorance infer that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presum ... ignorance/

The above....is a Poster Child of it. All you need do is suggest a frivolous conjecture (and I'm being kind) of the unknown, as possible....like from "MARS"!

regards

Enoch2021
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:55 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #54

Post by Enoch2021 »

Bust Nak wrote:
Enoch2021 wrote: Do you have a cogent substantive argument to justify these...

To say "No GOD", you MUST believe (short list):

1. Stupid Atoms can write their own CODE/Software.
Assuming you meant patterns can arise without intelligent input, sure I believe that, I've seen it with my own eyes.
Did I say "patterns" or fractals? I said CODE---Software (They're mutually inclusive) as in Algorithmic Coding and Decoding Schemes.

There was no life on Earth, and now there is. It's easy to believe life came from non-life.
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?
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.


I don't have to believe that to not believe in any gods. The universe could be eternal, or been generated from non intelligent means.
Eternal? Have you heard of 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)? Does Maximum Entropy or "Heat Death" ring a bell?

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.
Assuming you meant evolution, sure we have empirical evidence to back that up.
Really? Can you start here....

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?

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. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush) ....mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.

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?
5. Planets and Stars coalescing from Gas and Debris.

We have empirical evidence to back that up too.
Please, Please state "Nebular Hypothesis" as your "Empirical evidence". 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.....?
all the while Directly Violating:

1. Laws of Thermodynamics "Pillars of Science".
2. Jeans Mass
3. Boyle's Gas Law
4. The Law of Conservation of Angular Momentum
5. Law of Biogenesis
6. Laws of Information
7. Laws of Chemistry/Biochemistry
8. Functional Sequence Complexity
9. Irreducible Complexity
10. Quantum Mechanics
11. Laws of Logic
12. Law of Cause and Effect


False by counter example. I have justified the belief of no gods without violating any of those.
Say What?? Can you point to "your" counter examples...?


regards

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #55

Post by Bust Nak »

[Replying to post 53 by Enoch2021]
How exactly are you reading an inferance that a proposition is true from the fact that it is not known to be false?

Read it again, "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. If so, life-suitable molecules, originating on Mars, may have later migrated to Earth via meteor ejections."

Where is the inferance?

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #56

Post by Bust Nak »

Enoch2021 wrote: 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, 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.
Based on the Law of Non-Contradiction--- two things that are contradictory can't be responsible the same time (or do you disagree?). This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate.
Sure, but you cannot rule nature out.

Eternal? Have you heard of 2LOT (2nd Law of Thermodynamics)? Does Maximum Entropy or "Heat Death" ring a bell?
Why yes, I have heard of both 2LOT and head 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.
That assumes the amount of usable energy was finite.
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?
No, you are the ones who believe in magic, remember? As for your question, why are you assuming that there was something stopping mRNA during the evolution of the splicing mechanism?
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?
Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush) ....mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm------Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.
But you've already answered your own questions: trial and error.
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!
Please, Please state "Nebular Hypothesis" as your "Empirical evidence".
What does that even mean? Why would I state a hypothesis as evidence?
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.
Say What?? Can you point to "your" counter examples...?
I did that already: Me.

DanieltheDragon
Savant
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 1:37 pm
Location: Charlotte
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #57

Post by DanieltheDragon »

[Replying to post 53 by Enoch2021]

again the above quote was not claiming something as fact.

last I checked "evidences suggest chemical conditions " is not equal to stating something is fact.

Like I said before and I will say it again, suggesting something is plausible probable or possible is not an argument from ignorance. Your definition does not invalidate this statement.

Enoch2021
Apprentice
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 1:55 pm
Location: Missouri

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #58

Post by Enoch2021 »

DanieltheDragon wrote: [Replying to post 53 by Enoch2021]

again the above quote was not claiming something as fact.

last I checked "evidences suggest chemical conditions " is not equal to stating something is fact.

Like I said before and I will say it again, suggesting something is plausible probable or possible is not an argument from ignorance. Your definition does not invalidate this statement.
Suggesting an "UNKOWN" a conjecture...is an Argument From Ignorance (Fallacy). What if I said.... it's possible 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula formed the precursors for RNA?

For Another...."Evidences suggest chemical conditions (including the presence of boron, molybdenum and oxygen)...."

RNA is made up of RIBOSE, Phosphate, and Nucleobases. Discussing these is a Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) on steroids.

And forming Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins spontaneously "Naturally" from their respective "building blocks"...is IMPOSSIBLE.

If you disagree, go ahead and post it.....Cite Source Please?

regards

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #59

Post by Danmark »

Enoch2021 wrote:
Danmark wrote:

"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
.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Is it fraud for Creationism and ID to claim to be scienc

Post #60

Post by Bust Nak »

Enoch2021 wrote: Suggesting an "UNKOWN" a conjecture...is an Argument From Ignorance (Fallacy). What if I said.... it's possible 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula formed the precursors for RNA?
Note the difference between what you said here and "it hasn't been proven that 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula did formed the precursors for RNA, therefore said gnomes didn't create RNA," and the negated verson "it hasn't been disproven that 3 toed gnomes behind the Crab Nebula formed the precursors for RNA, therefore said gnomes created RNA." Only the latter two are fallacies.

Post Reply