Two potential creation scenarios

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Two potential creation scenarios

Post #1

Post by agnosticatheist »

Let's assume for the sake of this debate that the following premises are true:

A: The Christian God exists

B: The Christian God created the universe

Now, let's consider two possible creation scenarios.

Scenario 1: God created each species in a separate creation event.

Scenario 1 questions for debate:

1. Why would God create each species in separate creation events and yet make it appear that each species emerged from earlier lifeforms? Wouldn't that make God dishonest?

2. The Bible says that God is trustworthy; can he still be trusted if he made it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't?

3. Why would God make it look like large-scale evolution has taken place when in fact it hasn't, knowing full well that this will cause many to doubt God's existence?

Scenario 2: God created the conditions in which carbon-based lifeforms could emerge and evolve on Earth, and eventually lead to the emergence of Homo Sapiens, which God would give a soul to (and perhaps make some other minor changes to), which would result in the creation of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or Modern Humans.

Scenario B Question for debate:

1. Why would God go to all that trouble when he could simply create each species in separate creation events?

Here's a broader set of questions that apply to both scenarios:

Why would God create lifeforms other than humans? Clearly humans are important because they "house" the human soul. But what about Wolves? Crocodiles? Crows? Gorillas?

What is the role of non-human lifeforms in God's "plan"?

Do they have souls too? Consciousness/awareness is a state that people claim is possible due to the soul.

Well, the more we observe and study the non-human natural world, the more it seems that consciousness/awareness exists on a spectrum, from human-level awareness (or perhaps higher...), down to complete non-consciousness/non-awareness (e.g. bacteria). There isn't some absolute line where life is divided between conscious and non-conscious, except for maybe at the "lower lifeform levels", but definitely not at the "higher lifeform levels". Dogs are conscious, they just aren't conscious to the same degree that humans are.

So, why create lifeforms besides humans and have consciousness exist on a spectrum?

Why would God do this knowing full well that it would cause people to question his existence?

It just seems to be such an interesting coincidence that God created lifeform consciousness on a spectrum. :-k

User avatar
KenRU
Guru
Posts: 1584
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 3:44 pm
Location: NJ

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #311

Post by KenRU »

Enoch2021 wrote:
KenRU wrote:
Enoch2021 wrote:
Fair enough. But ask yourself this question: If multiple sources of varying disciplines (dictionaries, common vernacular, encyclopedias, universities, colleges, vast majorities of scientists) all disagree with you, isn’t it more likely that you are wrong?

I’m not talking just scientists, I’m talking all avenues outside of the YEC circle that disagree with you.

Look at it from a different perspective. I’m betting (percentage-wise) I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.
As stated, These belong on "Political" science threads.
Once again, trying to redefine words and meanings. Doesn’t this get old for you?

Definition of Political Science: Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government and the analysis of political activity and political behavior.

I'll let the readers determine for themselves whether they think your argument holds water.
I'm here in Missouri; so...they have to "SHOW ME". :thumb:
You have been showed, you just argue regardless. Once you invalidate the dictionary as a source of meaning, everything said becomes debatable and argumentative, as you have just showed with Political Science. Your query of “show me� is disingenuous at best.
btw this....
I can find more Christian scientists who would disagree with you than you can find secular scientists who agree.
Is a No True Scotsman (Fallacy)

regards
You mean like when you say geologists and archaeologists aren’t “real� scientists?

Btw, you ignored the point. The point wasn’t numbers proving who is right or finding someone in the YEC camp to agree. The point was that you were setting yourself up for the same invalidation that you are trying to use to invalidate geology and archaeology.

all the best
Once again, trying to redefine words and meanings.
I didn't "define" Agree/Disagree...aren't they self evident?
I don’t know. Are you going to appeal to the flawed dictionary to define these words for me?
Definition of Political Science: Political science is a social science discipline that deals with systems of government and the analysis of political activity and political behavior.

I didn't define it just emphasized the Tenets/Characteristics of "it". Which are: "Majority", "Votes", "Consensus"---Agreements/Disagreements.

No, you ignored the words used to define Political Science.

But, then again, you have made it eminently clear that definitions are irrelevant to you when making a point.

Like Science--- Definition: Science--- "knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation". {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science



Characteristics: Hypotheses, Theories, Laws, Empirical et al.

Follow?

No, please don’t insert words into the definition. “Study of the natural world through experiments and observation� leave your unnecessary commentary out of definitions please.

You have been showed, you just argue regardless.


A Definition isn't an Illustration (Showing). Just like a Description isn't an Explanation.

Um, when we are discussing the definition of a word, a dictionary is all the proof one should need. Unless, of course, one has an agenda and a pre-determined conclusion they must make.

You mean like when you say geologists and archaeologists aren’t “real� scientists?

That's because they're NOT. Allow me to "Illustrate"....

A hypothesis an idea that proposes a tentative explanation about a phenomenon or a narrow set of PHENOMENA OBSERVED in the natural world. {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.britannic...ific-hypothesis

That's a Description. Here's a Practical Application "Illustration" (abbreviated):

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

Observe a Phenomenon: Some Tomatoes are Bigger than others.

Hypothesis: Tomatoes will grow bigger if exposed to more Sunlight.

Independent Variable: Sunlight.
Dependent Variable: Tomato Growth.

This is a VALID Hypothesis...it's TESTABLE, Observable, Repeatable, Falsifiable: (Empirical....The Scientific Method---what makes science, "Science")

None of this precludes geology and archaeology from being considered a science, even when using your definition above.

You can try to weasel and shoehorn in extraneous items all you want. It won’t work. By definition, they are sciences. And those who work in those fields are scientists.

So unless you subtract out Hypotheses and Theories from "Science" (good luck with that) then these are Glorified Question Beggars, @ Best!
regards


Science:
1) a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Scientist:
an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.

Sorry. I have no desire to debate whether or not geology and archaeology are able to “observe� or offer a “hypothesis�. You have shown a penchant for changing definitions of words to suit your needs.

The definitions are clear and obvious for anyone to see.

I submit that when someone refuses to acknowledge the dictionary as the primary source of a word’s definition, then their argument loses credibility. And lots of it.

All the best, Enoch.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." -Steven Weinberg

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

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #312

Post by Enoch2021 »

Jashwell wrote:
Enoch2021 wrote:
Could you explain why evolution isn't science, with a source that backs you up? I'm not asking you to keep asking for controlled variables and live experiments - I'm asking for the source that says you need them.
Here: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930
I do believe we've already addressed this one, but I'll go on:
Sources:

"The SCIENTIFIC METHOD requires that an hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests. Further, no matter how elegant A THEORY is, ITS PREDICTIONS MUST AGREE WITH EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and EXPERIMENTAL VERIFICATION of hypothetical PREDICTIONS is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. {Emphasis Mine}
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_l ... ndixe.html
I notice you didn't emphasise "In physics, as in every experimental science".

It is, of course, a source for teachers to use when teaching physics labs. In fact, Rochester University (the source of that article) offers a degree incorporating evolutionary biology - in the biological sciences.

Furthermore:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment wrote: A natural experiment is an empirical study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) exposed to the experimental and control conditions are determined by nature or by other factors outside the control of the investigators, yet the process governing the exposures arguably resembles random assignment. Thus, natural experiments are observational studies and are not controlled in the traditional sense of a randomized experiment.
(as previously mentioned)
Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

"Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. LAWS AND EXPERIMENTS ARE INAPPROPRIATE TECHNIQUES FOR THE EXPLICATION OF SUCH EVENTS AND PROCESSES. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

Any Questions?
"Darwin introduced historicity into science."
"Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science"
"the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes, Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain."

My question is: Given that this has been addressed before (twice?) and that Mayr explicitly calls evolutionary biology science, while discussing that the same techniques used in Chemistry and Physics aren't necessarily applicable to historical evolution*, why are you still bring it up? Why did you bring it up in the first place, when it outright contradicts your position in the first sentence? How could it possibly be misconstrued as supporting the view that evolution isn't science?

(* coincidental link to previous quote - the previous quote describes the importance of experimentation in 'experimental sciences', not in all of science - though somewhat redundant given the context of the previous quote)

Are you seriously suggesting "Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science" supports you in any way?
This says it all:

"...Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

We have ourselves a "Philosopher"!!

Is "Philosophy" Science ? Does it follow the Scientific Method?
It can be, by some accounts all of science would be a subset of philosophy (as would maths and logic). Then you have the people who call many things "a philosophy". Depends who you ask, but the person in question clearly thinks evolution is a science. That particular quote doesn't seem to me to be particularly literal regardless. Science is certainly an epistemology, and epistemology is quite a big deal in philosophy.
Or you could, you know, just explain why you think not having a controlled variable would somehow make testing impossible.
Well since Scientific Hypotheses ARE THIS:

It's an "If This" (Independent Variable)... "Then That" (Dependent Variable) type of scenario or "Not That" (Null's).

If you don't have: (Dependent/Independent/Control Variables) then it's not a Scientific Hypothesis.
What makes you think that? The sources you've given either think evolution has those or doesn't need those. The latter is explicitly supported by the previous quote, if anything you could interpret the latter to be a response to the former with the context of this discussion (a nice coincidence).
modern experiments on evolution
We've identified the problem, you don't know what evolution is:
Evolution of drug resistance
Evolution in controlled experiments (in microbiology)
Evolution by artificial selection (various)
From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.
You know, having published books that discuss evolution doesn't make you its father.

Regardless, first of all the author distinguishes between a "general" and a "specific" theory of evolution (already indicating he's not addressing it all), and second, the actual theory of evolution doesn't require anything of the sort. Evolution could occur in an infinite world on which life never begun (but just always existed), it could occur in life created by natural or supernatural means, and it could occur if there were multiple sources of life.
"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
Outside of biology, we aren't discussing the theory of biology, it'd be equivocation to use the two alternately. "Man is a product of the evolution of life" is the closest that gets to discussing biological evolution.
Ergo....
Ergo nothing, neither quote remotely supports what you've said, both make more reference to abiogenesis (the origin of life) than evolutionary biology.
Using the "Scientific Method", can you explain these..

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!
This doesn't stop evolution being a science; this doesn't stop evolution occurring; if you want to discuss hypotheses relating to early life, we can do that when we aren't discussing the truth of or scientific nature of (the study of) evolution - which isn't relevant. Even if life couldn't begin naturally, evolution could still occur.
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin :)
Fortunately I don't need to do anything of the sort. This is an argument from ignorance, this is a false dichotomy (implied by 'to refute'), this is false equivocation (as to what evolution is).
2. How Did Stupid Atoms CREATE Their Own Software....?
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.
Just because somebody puts the word "Historical" before "Science" doesn't make it "Science". It makes it an Equivocation (Fallacy) especially if the Antecedent is the Antithesis of "It".
1) That's not an equivocation fallacy, that's an oxymoron - and there's no reason to think historical science is oxymoronic (see 2)
2) Assuming historicity is antithetical to science is begging the question
3) Please stop giving quotes that oppose your own position, and then suggesting they're evidence for your position. Especially when you're saying "[Evolution is science]" supports the idea that evolution isn't science.


I do believe we've already addressed this one, but I'll go on:
Na, you didn't.
I notice you didn't emphasise "In physics, as in every experimental science".

I'm busted!! I hatched the plan months ago...all that work down the drain. Back to the drawing board.
In fact, Rochester University (the source of that article) offers a degree incorporating evolutionary biology - in the biological sciences.
Nobody's Perfect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment wrote:

A natural experiment is an empirical study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) exposed to the experimental and control conditions are determined by nature or by other factors outside the control of the investigators, yet the process governing the exposures arguably resembles random assignment. Thus, natural experiments are observational studies and are not controlled in the traditional sense of a randomized experiment.
A "wiki" reference, how quaint. Slightly OT but an observation...if "wiki" would fold about 100% of the "wiki" google scientists would follow "in kind" @ light speed.

"natural experiment also is called a quasi-experiment. A natural experiment involves making a prediction or forming a hypothesis and then gathering data by observing a system. The variables are not controlled in a natural experiment." {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.about.com/od/introduct ... riment.htm

"QUASI"--- seemingly; apparently but not really.

Good Try.
My question is: Given that this has been addressed before (twice?) and that Mayr explicitly calls evolutionary biology science,
It must be "science" then....?
My question is: Given that this has been addressed before (twice?) and that Mayr explicitly calls evolutionary biology science, while discussing that the same techniques used in Chemistry and Physics aren't necessarily applicable to historical evolution*, why are you still bring it up?
Well because Professor Mayr is Equivocating (Fallacy) the term science. Ya see, Physics and Chemistry are "REAL" sciences and by "contrasting" with evolution is more or less admitting that somethings amiss.

"...Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

That particular quote doesn't seem to me to be particularly literal regardless.
Can you point to any Rhetorical Language here that would lead you to that conclusion?

If Philosophy is science so is Astrology.
Evolution of drug resistance
Evolution in controlled experiments (in microbiology)
Evolution by artificial selection (various)
evolution of "what" in each specifically...?

You know, having published books that discuss evolution doesn't make you its father.
I said the fathers of "20th Century evolution theory" of which they are. And a Straw Man (Fallacy)
Regardless, first of all the author distinguishes between a "general" and a "specific" theory of evolution (already indicating he's not addressing it all), and second, the actual theory of evolution doesn't require anything of the sort.
Ipse Dixit, eh? Well you need the General before you have a wisp of a prayer for the special; Ergo... before I go chasing after the steak, please establish the existence of the Cow, First. Thanks

Outside of biology, we aren't discussing the theory of biology, it'd be equivocation to use the two alternately. "Man is a product of the evolution of life" is the closest that gets to discussing biological evolution.
I didn't say it..... TG Dobzhansky did, so your argument is with him.
Even if life couldn't begin naturally, evolution could still occur.
Huh?

Even if evolution couldn't begin naturally, evolution could still occur...is how I read this.

But go on....?

This doesn't stop evolution being a science....
The lack of any tenet Validated via the Scientific Method does...IN TOTO.

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin Smile


Fortunately I don't need to do anything of the sort. This is an argument from ignorance, this is a false dichotomy (implied by 'to refute'), this is false equivocation (as to what evolution is).
So this is a...

Argument from Ignorance, False Dichotomy, and a False Equivocation (Whatever this is)

These are Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) x 3. How so, for each....?

How Did Stupid Atoms CREATE Their Own Software....?


I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

CODE/Information/Software is only ever ever ever sourced from Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!

DNA contains: Code/Information/Software.

Ergo....DNA----LIFE was Sourced by Intelligence (GOD)

To say "NO GOD" then: Show how Stupid Atoms Created the INFORMATION Themselves....? Follow?
That's not an equivocation fallacy, that's an oxymoron - and there's no reason to think historical science is oxymoronic
It's actually BOTH, Thanks
Assuming historicity is antithetical to science is begging the question
Assuming Historicity?? How on Earth am I ASSUMING it...isn't it Prima Facie?
Please stop giving quotes that oppose your own position
I'm not. I'm pointing out that "Saying it" doesn't make "it" so. In fact, it's Exhibit A in refuting it.
Especially when you're saying "[Evolution is science]"
I didn't say that, Professor Mayr said it's "Historical Science", contrasted it with "Real" Sciences (Physics and Chemistry) and that Darwin's a Philosopher.

He's done my work for me :cool:

regards

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #313

Post by Jashwell »

Enoch2021 wrote:
I do believe we've already addressed this one, but I'll go on:
Na, you didn't.
Jashwell wrote:
Enoch2021 wrote: 3. It's quite obvious you haven't a Clue what "Quote Mining" is Sir. It would probably help if you READ THEM FIRST :thumb:, See Post # 273.
You've misrepresented at least one quote in this post. A quote that explicitly calls evolution science and claims it 'introduced historicity' (which I'd call dubious - other fields like archaeology and some forms of geology can be based on historical data) is used to attempt to show why evolution isn't science.
(and the quote from Mayr has been addressed before)
I notice you didn't emphasise "In physics, as in every experimental science".

I'm busted!! I hatched the plan months ago...all that work down the drain. Back to the drawing board.
It doesn't say "in all science", even if it weren't in the context of teaching material for physics labs.

This is like taking an article talking about how pools of water are often blue, and using it to claim that bodies of lava aren't pools for the reason that they usually aren't blue.

In fact, Rochester University (the source of that article) offers a degree incorporating evolutionary biology - in the biological sciences.
Nobody's Perfect.
And maybe you're extrapolating the material beyond its context, or potentially missing out key details.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_experiment wrote:

A natural experiment is an empirical study in which individuals (or clusters of individuals) exposed to the experimental and control conditions are determined by nature or by other factors outside the control of the investigators, yet the process governing the exposures arguably resembles random assignment. Thus, natural experiments are observational studies and are not controlled in the traditional sense of a randomized experiment.
A "wiki" reference, how quaint. Slightly OT but an observation...if "wiki" would fold about 100% of the "wiki" google scientists would follow "in kind" @ light speed.
So dictionaries are out of bounds, Wikis are out of bounds, are the only sources in bounds obscure ones intended for use within a particular corporation that you've dug up, and quotes that obviously don't support you? The fact that it is a concept is enough; similarly if someone makes a Wikipedia article on blue squares, that's enough to know that blue squares are a thing.

How's this? https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=natur ... -wikipedia
"natural experiment also is called a quasi-experiment. A natural experiment involves making a prediction or forming a hypothesis and then gathering data by observing a system. The variables are not controlled in a natural experiment." {Emphasis Mine}
http://chemistry.about.com/od/introduct ... riment.htm

"QUASI"--- seemingly; apparently but not really.

Good Try.
Some authors distinguish between a natural experiment and a "quasi-experiment". The difference is that in a quasi-experiment the criterion for assignment is selected by the researcher, while in a natural experiment the assignment occurs 'naturally,' without the researcher's intervention.
(words of Wikipedia, sourced from "Dinardo, J. (2008). "natural experiments and quasi-natural experiments". The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics."; "Shadish; Cook; Cambell (2002). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.")

Not that 'quasi' would matter - they're still used in science. Thanks for giving yet another source indicating that some of the methods used in evolutionary biology are in fact scientific.

But while we're on there, how about the fact that this new source explicitly says "Types of experiments: Natural experiments"?
Have you changed your mind about evolution now? Or are we just going to wait for the next source ... and the next source ... and the next, until eventually we find a source that does actually support a single premise for your argument?
My question is: Given that this has been addressed before (twice?) and that Mayr explicitly calls evolutionary biology science,
It must be "science" then....?
It's your quote, you're welcome to rescind it at any time you wish.
My question is: Given that this has been addressed before (twice?) and that Mayr explicitly calls evolutionary biology science, while discussing that the same techniques used in Chemistry and Physics aren't necessarily applicable to historical evolution*, why are you still bring it up?
Well because Professor Mayr is Equivocating (Fallacy) the term science. Ya see, Physics and Chemistry are "REAL" sciences and by "contrasting" with evolution is more or less admitting that somethings amiss.
No, Mayr is saying that the techniques used in the sciences of Physics and Chemistry are different to the techniques used in the sciences of Evolutionary Biology. Assuming he's equivocating is begging the question, and would make your quote redundant - because you could just use the justification for that as your argument here.
"...Darwin’s founding of a new branch of the philosophy of science, a philosophy of biology." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Darwin's Influence on Modern Thought; Scientific American, 24 November 2009

That particular quote doesn't seem to me to be particularly literal regardless.
Can you point to any Rhetorical Language here that would lead you to that conclusion?
Not literal =/= rhetorical, but regardless, the use of the word philosophy in the first place (and branch, of course). Take it or leave it, but it doesn't matter, because Mayr's already said evolution is science.

If you want literary devices, there's repetition (new philosophy of... a philosophy of).
If Philosophy is science so is Astrology.
Complete non-sequitur. Philosophy isn't a subset (proper or otherwise) of Astrology.
Evolution of drug resistance
Evolution in controlled experiments (in microbiology)
Evolution by artificial selection (various)
evolution of "what" in each specifically...?
Evolution of drug resistance in viruses and bacteria, evolution of many different things in controlled experiments, and evolution of various things (usually domestication) by artificial selection. I linked a Wikipedia page previously with more links to various modern experiments on evolution.
You know, having published books that discuss evolution doesn't make you its father.
I said the fathers of "20th Century evolution theory" of which they are. And a Straw Man (Fallacy)
That's not a straw man, that's me saying he (one of them specifically, I forget which, but probably the one quoted immediately after) isn't in any sense a 'founding father of evolution'.

(And you said "from the two fathers of evolution theory", not "the fathers of "20th Century evolution theory"")
Regardless, first of all the author distinguishes between a "general" and a "specific" theory of evolution (already indicating he's not addressing it all), and second, the actual theory of evolution doesn't require anything of the sort.
Ipse Dixit, eh? Well you need the General before you have a wisp of a prayer for the special; Ergo... before I go chasing after the steak, please establish the existence of the Cow, First. Thanks
.. What?

Neither the 'general theory of evolution', nor the 'special theory of evolution' that Kerkut proposed are the theory of evolution.
Outside of biology, we aren't discussing the theory of biology, it'd be equivocation to use the two alternately. "Man is a product of the evolution of life" is the closest that gets to discussing biological evolution.
I didn't say it..... TG Dobzhansky did, so your argument is with him.
No, but you did quote it. Why do you think it's relevant?
Even if life couldn't begin naturally, evolution could still occur.
Huh?

Even if evolution couldn't begin naturally, evolution could still occur...is how I read this.

But go on....?
Lets say a duo of gods created all life on Earth, and leave it for a few billion years.

The life will evolve (given imperfect replication and inheritable traits - which life on Earth pretty clearly has).

Imperfect replication leads to changes, changes alter survivability and propagation, and so on. Eventually, the life will probably (for the most part) be unrecognisably different.
Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
This doesn't stop evolution being a science....
The lack of any tenet Validated via the Scientific Method does...IN TOTO.
This (the original quote) can still be the case even if evolution is true, and vice versa. Evolution doesn't require functional DNA/RNA/proteins to spontaneously form naturally outside of existing cells [ ... ].

Evolution is the process by which life changes - you could say "here's a particular feature that can't evolve" but (even if true) that doesn't mean "therefore nothing can evolve".

Whether or not the claim is actually true is a topic up for discussion, but we're currently discussing the theory of evolution as a whole.

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin Smile


Fortunately I don't need to do anything of the sort. This is an argument from ignorance, this is a false dichotomy (implied by 'to refute'), this is false equivocation (as to what evolution is).
So this is a...

Argument from Ignorance, False Dichotomy, and a False Equivocation (Whatever this is)

These are Baseless Assertions (Fallacy) x 3. How so, for each....?
Argument from ignorance - you're saying it's impossible, the burden of proof is on you.
False dichotomy - you're giving a choice between not refuting, and refuting in the way you stated. Doing what you've claimed isn't necessary to refute it.
False equivocation - you're equivocating the theory of evolution with a specific claim that someone might make in the field of evolution or abiogenesis, that RNA or protein could evolve or otherwise naturally arise. Whether or not their (or your) claim is true has no bearing on the overall truth of evolutionary biology (or how scientific it is).
How Did Stupid Atoms CREATE Their Own Software....?
I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean.

CODE/Information/Software is only ever ever ever sourced from Intelligent Agency, Without Exception!
What would you count as new information?
DNA contains: Code/Information/Software.

Ergo....DNA----LIFE was Sourced by Intelligence (GOD)

To say "NO GOD" then: Show how Stupid Atoms Created the INFORMATION Themselves....? Follow?
Evolution would still occur regardless of whether life was started naturally, by God, by many gods, or many times over.
Assuming historicity is antithetical to science is begging the question
Assuming Historicity?? How on Earth am I ASSUMING it...isn't it Prima Facie?
It's not prima facie true, as I said, that'd be begging the question.
Why is 'historical' antithetical to science?
Please stop giving quotes that oppose your own position
I'm not. I'm pointing out that "Saying it" doesn't make "it" so. In fact, it's Exhibit A in refuting it.
You demonstrably are giving quotes that disagree with you (shown in this post and in previous posts), and you aren't giving them because you think 'saying it doesn't make it so' - you're doing it as support for your position, hence all the highlighting of "experiments can be important in science" and etc.
Especially when you're saying "[Evolution is science]"
I didn't say that, Professor Mayr said it's "Historical Science", contrasted it with "Real" Sciences (Physics and Chemistry) and that Darwin's a Philosopher.
-supports the idea that evolution isn't science-
is a missing section of your quote of me.

Mayr didn't "contrast it with the real sciences", he contrasted it with two other sciences that could use different methodologies - hence his explanation of a perceived absence of laws and experiments.

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

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #314

Post by Enoch2021 »

Jashwell wrote:

Just a few....

To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin Smile


Argument from ignorance - you're saying it's impossible, the burden of proof is on you.
False dichotomy - you're giving a choice between not refuting, and refuting in the way you stated. Doing what you've claimed isn't necessary to refute it.
False equivocation - you're equivocating the theory of evolution with a specific claim that someone might make in the field of evolution or abiogenesis, that RNA or protein could evolve or otherwise naturally arise. Whether or not their (or your) claim is true has no bearing on the overall truth of evolutionary biology (or how scientific it is).
A choice between Validating and Invalidating is not a False Dichotomy. LOL

A "False" Equivocation is...... "NO" Equivocation.

Saying that it's "Impossible" is not an Argument from Ignorance it's the opposite....

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is POSITIVE (Same with Proteins from AA's) as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids).
That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.

And, The Elephant in The Room...."INFORMATION". To SUPPORT "Your" position, you MUST SHOW where/how the Information (The Software) came from AND show @ least a 30mer- Functional RNA/Protein (The Hardware) spontaneously form Naturally.
If you can't SHOW.....then, "Your" Argument is one from Ignorance. You have some hurdles to overcome, Namely VIOLATING: The Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry/Information and the tenets of Functional Sequence Complexity. (Best Wishes)

theory of evolution
There is no "Theory" of evolution, there's "Just So" Stories, take a crack @ this.....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930

Evolution of drug resistance in viruses and bacteria
Woe there, Where'd you get Bacteria and Viruses.....?

If you want literary devices, there's repetition (new philosophy of... a philosophy of)
Is this a Joke?

btw, Sourcing "wiki" where anybody and their sister can "add" content is not a Scientific Source....it's a tear jerkin belly laugher, and speaks volumes on right where your @.


Also, Have you touched on this?? : http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746


regards

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #315

Post by Jashwell »

Enoch2021 wrote:
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin Smile


Argument from ignorance - you're saying it's impossible, the burden of proof is on you.
False dichotomy - you're giving a choice between not refuting, and refuting in the way you stated. Doing what you've claimed isn't necessary to refute it.
False equivocation - you're equivocating the theory of evolution with a specific claim that someone might make in the field of evolution or abiogenesis, that RNA or protein could evolve or otherwise naturally arise. Whether or not their (or your) claim is true has no bearing on the overall truth of evolutionary biology (or how scientific it is).
A choice between Validating and Invalidating is not a False Dichotomy. LOL
A choice between not invalidating* and invalidating in the specific way you've given is. There are plenty of other ways to refute what you've said; or the simpler means of just not accepting it as there isn't enough evidence.

A "False" Equivocation is...... "NO" Equivocation.
No, a false equivocation is a logical fallacy. Calling it "false equivocation" rather than "equivocation" more aptly distinguishes it from proper equivocation, and any context of the word outside of logic.

Compare to false equivalence - saying someone's committed false equivalence isn't saying they've not committed equivalence, it's saying they've falsely treated two things as equal.
Saying that it's "Impossible" is not an Argument from Ignorance it's the opposite....
Saying it's impossible and demanding proof otherwise IS an argument from ignorance.
The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is POSITIVE (Same with Proteins from AA's) as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids).
*to start - this wouldn't be a problem for evolution anyway, as stated before - it'd be a problem for a specific thing evolving, or for abiogenesis*

Reactions that decrease entropy occasionally occur, as do those with a positive gibbs energy, the law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent that in sum total any more than probability prevents unlikely things from happening, rather that it's less likely and that entropy tends to increase. (let alone in local, open systems)

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... y_possible
(also see citations and cited in)

What you claim doesn't appear to be the case at all.
That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.
Once again, wouldn't be a problem for evolution itself. If anything these issues seem more suited for you to ask biochemists or to be on some FAQ page somewhere on the internet, and certainly hand waving topics isn't enough.
And, The Elephant in The Room...."INFORMATION". To SUPPORT "Your" position, you MUST SHOW where/how the Information (The Software) came from AND show @ least a 30mer- Functional RNA/Protein (The Hardware) spontaneously form Naturally.
If you can't SHOW.....then, "Your" Argument is one from Ignorance. You have some hurdles to overcome, Namely VIOLATING: The Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry/Information and the tenets of Functional Sequence Complexity. (Best Wishes)
We're back to at least two of the same three fallacies again. Your demands for one specific form of evidence fall on deaf ears - I don't need to provide that. In fact, since we're discussing evolution, I don't even need to have a conversation about abiological origins of proteins and such - it's not a problem for evolution.

Your objection through the use of the word information is unfounded - (this kind of) information is subjective; information only exists in the context of an interpreter; baggaged terms like 'information' and the concept it can only arise from intelligence (a "physical law" unique to creationist circles alone) is used to hide the fact that all the intermediate steps are possible. Emergence occurs all the time, computer algorithms generate what some would consider to count as this kind of information regularly out of random algorithms sometimes based on evolution - differential evolution, for instance.

There has never been a foundation on which (this context of) "information" as an objection can rest. It's a claim just as well off as those a thousand years ago who'd say it's impossible because a "breath of life" can't come from abiological means.
theory of evolution
There is no "Theory" of evolution, there's "Just So" Stories, take a crack @ this.....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930
I addressed your response to a response to this, and the majority of points too.
Evolution of drug resistance in viruses and bacteria
Woe there, Where'd you get Bacteria and Viruses.....?
... What else did you think I was talking about?
Why are you saying that like it'd be a problem if it was out of nowhere?

"Show me a cat with white fur."
*shows a cat with white fur and blue eyes*
"Woah, where did the blue eyes come from?"

Regardless of the specifics; it's evolution.
If you want literary devices, there's repetition (new philosophy of... a philosophy of)
Is this a Joke?
You asked for 'rhetorical language', and I gave you it (in more ways than one).
btw, Sourcing "wiki" where anybody and their sister can "add" content is not a Scientific Source....it's a tear jerkin belly laugher, and speaks volumes on right where your @.
I've always had a problem with people who think this, so lets get this out of the way:
If you don't believe it, check the sources it gives. I did give the direct sources on one occasion, do books become invalid once they're mentioned by Wikipedia?
Meanwhile, your sources are from teaching material; blog articles and forum posts (which were the sources for one of the articles you linked) - but I still addressed them.

When referring to the existence of a concept, the fact that multiple people refer to it is enough.

It's a contradictory position to have, where if it's said on Wikipedia with sources cited it's assumed not to be trustworthy (despite the fact you could just check most of the time), while if it's mentioned on a different site without any it's perfectly fine.
Also, Have you touched on this?? : http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746
regards
No, but given that you're giving many references to other long posts I'll be brief:

Genetic code + interpreter aren't irreducibly complex, esp when the genetic code can itself be catalytic if not a reactive agent, and when the interpreter could've had additional deprecated functionality

"meeting" not needed - the actual pairing of value to protein is not important, it makes no difference whether a particular protein is ATG or TGC, so long as it isn't changed afterwards.

Obviously people that support abiogenesis don't think life in it's current form arose spontaneously, but rather that it has simpler life-like ancestors.

All your "null hypotheses" are biased.

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

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #316

Post by Enoch2021 »

Jashwell wrote:
Enoch2021 wrote:
To refute, Please show a Functional 30 mer- RNA or Protein (most are 250 AA or larger) that formed spontaneously "Outside" a Cell/Living Organism, CITE SOURCE! The smallest "Functional" DNA (Genome) is a little over 100,000 Nucleotides... so that ain't happenin Smile


Argument from ignorance - you're saying it's impossible, the burden of proof is on you.
False dichotomy - you're giving a choice between not refuting, and refuting in the way you stated. Doing what you've claimed isn't necessary to refute it.
False equivocation - you're equivocating the theory of evolution with a specific claim that someone might make in the field of evolution or abiogenesis, that RNA or protein could evolve or otherwise naturally arise. Whether or not their (or your) claim is true has no bearing on the overall truth of evolutionary biology (or how scientific it is).
A choice between Validating and Invalidating is not a False Dichotomy. LOL
A choice between not invalidating* and invalidating in the specific way you've given is. There are plenty of other ways to refute what you've said; or the simpler means of just not accepting it as there isn't enough evidence.

A "False" Equivocation is...... "NO" Equivocation.
No, a false equivocation is a logical fallacy. Calling it "false equivocation" rather than "equivocation" more aptly distinguishes it from proper equivocation, and any context of the word outside of logic.

Compare to false equivalence - saying someone's committed false equivalence isn't saying they've not committed equivalence, it's saying they've falsely treated two things as equal.
Saying that it's "Impossible" is not an Argument from Ignorance it's the opposite....
Saying it's impossible and demanding proof otherwise IS an argument from ignorance.
The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is POSITIVE (Same with Proteins from AA's) as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids).
*to start - this wouldn't be a problem for evolution anyway, as stated before - it'd be a problem for a specific thing evolving, or for abiogenesis*

Reactions that decrease entropy occasionally occur, as do those with a positive gibbs energy, the law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent that in sum total any more than probability prevents unlikely things from happening, rather that it's less likely and that entropy tends to increase. (let alone in local, open systems)

http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... y_possible
(also see citations and cited in)

What you claim doesn't appear to be the case at all.
That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.
Once again, wouldn't be a problem for evolution itself. If anything these issues seem more suited for you to ask biochemists or to be on some FAQ page somewhere on the internet, and certainly hand waving topics isn't enough.
And, The Elephant in The Room...."INFORMATION". To SUPPORT "Your" position, you MUST SHOW where/how the Information (The Software) came from AND show @ least a 30mer- Functional RNA/Protein (The Hardware) spontaneously form Naturally.
If you can't SHOW.....then, "Your" Argument is one from Ignorance. You have some hurdles to overcome, Namely VIOLATING: The Laws of Physics/Chemistry/Biochemistry/Information and the tenets of Functional Sequence Complexity. (Best Wishes)
We're back to at least two of the same three fallacies again. Your demands for one specific form of evidence fall on deaf ears - I don't need to provide that. In fact, since we're discussing evolution, I don't even need to have a conversation about abiological origins of proteins and such - it's not a problem for evolution.

Your objection through the use of the word information is unfounded - (this kind of) information is subjective; information only exists in the context of an interpreter; baggaged terms like 'information' and the concept it can only arise from intelligence (a "physical law" unique to creationist circles alone) is used to hide the fact that all the intermediate steps are possible. Emergence occurs all the time, computer algorithms generate what some would consider to count as this kind of information regularly out of random algorithms sometimes based on evolution - differential evolution, for instance.

There has never been a foundation on which (this context of) "information" as an objection can rest. It's a claim just as well off as those a thousand years ago who'd say it's impossible because a "breath of life" can't come from abiological means.
theory of evolution
There is no "Theory" of evolution, there's "Just So" Stories, take a crack @ this.....
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 930#705930
I addressed your response to a response to this, and the majority of points too.
Evolution of drug resistance in viruses and bacteria
Woe there, Where'd you get Bacteria and Viruses.....?
... What else did you think I was talking about?
Why are you saying that like it'd be a problem if it was out of nowhere?

"Show me a cat with white fur."
*shows a cat with white fur and blue eyes*
"Woah, where did the blue eyes come from?"

Regardless of the specifics; it's evolution.
If you want literary devices, there's repetition (new philosophy of... a philosophy of)
Is this a Joke?
You asked for 'rhetorical language', and I gave you it (in more ways than one).
btw, Sourcing "wiki" where anybody and their sister can "add" content is not a Scientific Source....it's a tear jerkin belly laugher, and speaks volumes on right where your @.
I've always had a problem with people who think this, so lets get this out of the way:
If you don't believe it, check the sources it gives. I did give the direct sources on one occasion, do books become invalid once they're mentioned by Wikipedia?
Meanwhile, your sources are from teaching material; blog articles and forum posts (which were the sources for one of the articles you linked) - but I still addressed them.

When referring to the existence of a concept, the fact that multiple people refer to it is enough.

It's a contradictory position to have, where if it's said on Wikipedia with sources cited it's assumed not to be trustworthy (despite the fact you could just check most of the time), while if it's mentioned on a different site without any it's perfectly fine.
Also, Have you touched on this?? : http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 746#706746
regards
No, but given that you're giving many references to other long posts I'll be brief:

Genetic code + interpreter aren't irreducibly complex, esp when the genetic code can itself be catalytic if not a reactive agent, and when the interpreter could've had additional deprecated functionality

"meeting" not needed - the actual pairing of value to protein is not important, it makes no difference whether a particular protein is ATG or TGC, so long as it isn't changed afterwards.

Obviously people that support abiogenesis don't think life in it's current form arose spontaneously, but rather that it has simpler life-like ancestors.

All your "null hypotheses" are biased.




http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... amide_form...
(also see citations and cited in)

What you claim doesn't appear to be the case at all.
And this is for what? Do you know what you're reading...if you even read it? Post the "Study Methods and Design" (for each CITATION) and post the "Functional" minimum 30 mer RNA.....?

You've got some BIG problems:

"The origin of informational polymers is not understood. The RNA polymerization process has been studied for five decades, the results showing that from preactivated precursors polymers of several tens can be obtained, as reviewed previously (1). These pioneering studies provide the proof-of-principle that RNA precursors can self-assemble yielding linear polymers. However, the prebiotic validity of a process based on complex preactivation procedures is limited (1, 2), and the problem of defining a prebiotically plausible chemical and THERMODYNAMIC scenario for the synthesis and accumulation of informational polymers remains open. THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM IS THE STANDARD STATE GIBBS FREE ENERGY CHANGE (3,4) stating that condensation reactions are very inefficient in water. Given that extant polymerizations occur in water, this is a major difficulty, only partially solved by the fact that these processes at present occur inside the active site of enzymes where water activity may be drastically reduced. The other part of the extant solution, fruit of evolution, is the use of biologically highly PREactivated triphosphate nucleotides (3). In primordia, RNA molecules had no enzymes to catalyze their chain-wise growth, and highly activated precursors can be considered as prebiotic only with difficulty." {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.jbc.org/content/284/48/33206.full

btw, the "difficulties" mentioned above are "CODE" for.... "when Pigs Fly".
to start - this wouldn't be a problem for evolution anyway.

I don't even need to have a conversation about abiological origins of proteins and such - it's not a problem for evolution.
You sure...

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409


These are Plainly Obvious and Documented regarding the "theory". By the mere fact that you and everybody's sister feebly tries a laugher attempt to distance themselves from it (Conveniently after it was found to be a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher) reveals the ad hoc (Fallacy)--- Pseudo Scientific Characteristic never ending Rescue Hypotheses nature of the mind numbing theory (PE/Convergent come to mind).... that contorts itself around, like an incoherent Shape Shifting fog, to any and all Falsifications, (aka: Pseudo-Science): evolution is the Poster Child.
"junk" DNA, is next in the breach (Vestigial Redux...didn't learn their lesson). In 5 years (Current Hollerings), all we'll hear is "What Junk??...we never said that".

“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.�
Slack, G., What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp, The Scientist, 20 June 2008
Reactions that decrease entropy occasionally occur, as do those with a positive gibbs energy, the law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent that in sum total any more than probability prevents unlikely things from happening, rather that it's less likely and that entropy tends to increase. (let alone in local, open systems)
1. "Reactions" well these aren't any ole "Reactions"...be specific.

2. "Occasionally", eh? Well go ahead and Show a 30 mer "Functional" RNA or Protein.

3. "Open System"? How is this assisting PRE-biotically?

Saying it's impossible and demanding proof otherwise IS an argument from ignorance.
No it's not....

Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

I GAVE YOU EVIDENCE against "it" (DeltaG, Stereoisomerization, Oxidation, Hydrolysis, pH, Cross Reactions et al) as to why you can't SHOW IT. To refute, show EVIDENCE for "it".
Your objection through the use of the word information is unfounded - (this kind of) information is subjective.
What "kind of Information" is subjective? Can you show the "Subjectivity" in the physical presence of aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (or any of the Hundreds of Thousand other Protein Robots?

information only exists in the context of an interpreter
You got that right! Is there any "Interpreting" happening in a Living Cell?

If you don't believe it, check the sources it gives.
"You" check them and Post Them and show the Rationale where they Support "Your" argument. It's not my responsibility to prove "your" case Counselor!
do books become invalid once they're mentioned by Wikipedia?
Straw Man Fallacy. I never said that.

Genetic code + interpreter aren't irreducibly complex
Really? So if I remove eIF 1, everything is Good To Go, eh? How bout if I remove the: Ribosome or, tRNA's or, tRNA Synthetases or, mRNA or ----- 5' Prime Cap (Eukaryotes) or, any of the other 1,000 I could reel off....then No Problem, eh? "Functional Proteins" Galore, eh? geez. This is but "TRANSLATION", "Transcription" has another Metric Ton.
genetic code can itself be catalytic if not a reactive agent, and when the interpreter could've had additional deprecated functionality
1. Do tell.....?

2. "Interpreter". I thought you said above that to be "Information" there must be an Interpreter (which is correct). Interpreter denotes: purpose, reasoning, and communication with the transmitter, Preemptively.....Intelligence! Are you saying Atoms have Intelligence?

"meeting" not needed - the actual pairing of value to protein is not important, it makes no difference whether a particular protein is ATG or TGC, so long as it isn't changed afterwards.

This is quite troubling on so many levels? How pray tell do you get "functional proteins" then?
Changed After what?
Do you know what Functional Sequence Complexity is?
Can you speak to Protein Secondary Structure and it's importance to Functionality...?

1. It's not "pairing" to proteins...it's pairing to AA's.

2. There are no " T's " in mRNA or tRNA.

Can I ask you something....why on Earth are you even attempting to speak to this? It's well beyond ridiculous @ this point.
Obviously people that support abiogenesis don't think life in it's current form arose spontaneously, but rather that it has simpler life-like ancestors.
Textbook Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy). Or Please SHOW these "Life-Like" ancestors....?

You're also having difficulty discerning between "Science"....the Scientific Method. And....
Fairytales: Method.....Imagination.
All your "null hypotheses" are biased.
My goodness.

I think we're done here, don't you? Forget the questions (Please)...you're off the hook.

regards

User avatar
Excubis
Sage
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #317

Post by Excubis »

[Replying to Enoch2021]

All historical sciences, hypo.'s can be tested. We look at the physical evidence left and make predictions about future discoveries. Microevolution is verified completely in controlled experiments and mutations are not directed but random, though the rate increases when environmental stressors are added or removed. These are controlled experiments and all have the same repeatable results. Now causality for random mutations to occur is unknown but fact is it is random and not directed.

Future discoveries of predictions, have been made in microevolution experiments such as direct selection of variation. This is well used and accepted. Now as for a purely Natural Experiment time in correlation with environmental factors we maybe able to make predictions but since there are so many variables to consider it is unlikely that any natural prediction of evolution on the macro or micro scale will be seen. I should state we do implement the precautionary principle when dealing with health and evolution of viruses. Although not a precise prediction of the change that will occur, but if environment allows increased mutation by being either hostile or favorable. We in turn create laws and codes to limit these types of environments as a preventative tool.

The idea of laws vs. theory is an interpretive one only, no theory becomes a law but subsequent mechanics(predictions) of the theory do, even if broad scope of causalities in reference of the theory are still unknown. Evolution occurs, fact, random change drives evolution, fact, exact cause for random change not yet known. The argument of that biochemistry cannot yet explain some protein synthesis,and development of a cell wall does not substantiate any view. All science has unknowns that is what drives RESEARCH to stop our pursuit stops science. Why is philosophy and science linked so intimately because it is the pursuit to explain the unknowns by logical reasoning, not by a preconceived common sense.

Now as per macro evolution we have a fossil record and contrary to any word play on OBSERVATION in the methodology this record is completely valid. Not to agree is to state TIME was different and forces there in happened quicker. This is flawed when presenting the same such argument of observation as applied to other theories . At least the fossil record can be measured which is foundation for majority of the sciences, not when phenomenon occurred but whether we can measure it's effects at present.

Few tidbits to substantiate:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jetterso/Ecologic ... change.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... eationist/
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasiexp.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1767570/

This one you need to pay to read papers but if you have a desire I would highly recommend:
https://www.questia.com/library/journal ... imitations
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

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

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #318

Post by Enoch2021 »

Excubis wrote: [Replying to Enoch2021]

All historical sciences, hypo.'s can be tested. We look at the physical evidence left and make predictions about future discoveries. Microevolution is verified completely in controlled experiments and mutations are not directed but random, though the rate increases when environmental stressors are added or removed. These are controlled experiments and all have the same repeatable results. Now causality for random mutations to occur is unknown but fact is it is random and not directed.

Future discoveries of predictions, have been made in microevolution experiments such as direct selection of variation. This is well used and accepted. Now as for a purely Natural Experiment time in correlation with environmental factors we maybe able to make predictions but since there are so many variables to consider it is unlikely that any natural prediction of evolution on the macro or micro scale will be seen. I should state we do implement the precautionary principle when dealing with health and evolution of viruses. Although not a precise prediction of the change that will occur, but if environment allows increased mutation by being either hostile or favorable. We in turn create laws and codes to limit these types of environments as a preventative tool.

The idea of laws vs. theory is an interpretive one only, no theory becomes a law but subsequent mechanics(predictions) of the theory do, even if broad scope of causalities in reference of the theory are still unknown. Evolution occurs, fact, random change drives evolution, fact, exact cause for random change not yet known. The argument of that biochemistry cannot yet explain some protein synthesis,and development of a cell wall does not substantiate any view. All science has unknowns that is what drives RESEARCH to stop our pursuit stops science. Why is philosophy and science linked so intimately because it is the pursuit to explain the unknowns by logical reasoning, not by a preconceived common sense.

Now as per macro evolution we have a fossil record and contrary to any word play on OBSERVATION in the methodology this record is completely valid. Not to agree is to state TIME was different and forces there in happened quicker. This is flawed when presenting the same such argument of observation as applied to other theories . At least the fossil record can be measured which is foundation for majority of the sciences, not when phenomenon occurred but whether we can measure it's effects at present.

Few tidbits to substantiate:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jetterso/Ecologic ... change.pdf
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... eationist/
http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/quasiexp.php
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1767570/

This one you need to pay to read papers but if you have a desire I would highly recommend:
https://www.questia.com/library/journal ... imitations





All historical sciences, hypo.'s can be tested.

They can't, You don't have a viable Independent Variable because it's in the past...you can never VALIDATE (aka: TEST your Hypothesis). The only technique you can employ is "Inference to the best explanation"; that is: Observe the "after affects" ("Nouns") of a Volcanic Eruption. Note the ash layer in the surrounding area. When you stumble upon a similar ash layer elsewhere....make a reasonable conclusion that there must have been a Volcanic Eruption.
This isn't "Science"...a village idiot could employ this technique.
We look at the physical evidence left and make predictions about future discoveries.
My word sir. You can't hypothesize from "Observing Nouns" it's Non Sequitur (Fallacy) and Absolute Unbridled Pure Speculation! Here....

It seems the First Step in the Scientific Method "appears to be" somewhat confusing to some. It's not just "Make an Observation"; it's OBSERVE A PHENOMENON.
It's an "ACTION" that you OBSERVE, that must be based in Reality so as to afford the ability to TEST it. It's not just "OBSERVE" as in Observe "Nouns" (rock, fossil, et al)...you have to OBSERVE a "Phenomenon", an Action. And it has to be repeatable, it can't be a "One-Off"...if so, How can you TEST it?

If you try and circumvent The Scientific Method and Hypothesize with "Observations of Nouns", this is what you're reduced to (an example)...

I Observe a Tree "Noun". What's the Hypothesis.......? .....

How did this Tree Form? (Invalid, not Observed)
What circumstances led to this Tree growing in my backyard? (Invalid, not Observed)
The Tree formed by evolution. (Invalid, not Observed). And, you have an Invalid "Theory" in the Hypothesis.

but ok, lets humor it...

OK what's the TEST? Set up the Experiments, then please Elucidate...
What are the Dependent/Independent/Control Variables of the TESTS?

"You make a set of observations, then hypothesize an explanation which accounts for all of the observations." {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm

OK lets Hypothesize an Explanation which accounts for ALL the Observations.... So with our Tree:

Since we just "Observe the Tree", how do we account for all the Observations?
THIS IS YOUR ONLY RECOURSE (Each and every Time you just "Make an Observation" of Nouns): Your Hypothesis from the Train-wreck Observation...

[In the daytime] Open your Eyelids then billions of bits of data hit the Retina which then the Photo-Receptors have to ENCODE then send to the Visual Cortex for DECODING (Symbolic Logic). --- which btw, the Laws of Physics and Biochemistry have no Symbolic Logic Functions.

Viola, A Tree!

It's OBSERVE a PHENOMENON, not just "Make an Observation"---of Nouns!

Microevolution is verified completely in controlled experiments and mutations are not directed but random....
"Micro"-evolution is merely Genetic Variation <--- Let's use this term so we don't Equivocate down the line, and has been known "conceptually" since the dawn of time. Controlled Experiments, eh? Walk over to your neighbors house and Observe the: different eye/hair color, size of there nose and ears ad nauseam. VOILA! It has nothing to do with "Mutations" for cryin out loud. You heard of Change in Allele Frequency?
Future discoveries of predictions, have been made in microevolution experiments such as direct selection of variation. This is well used and accepted.
Future discoveries of predictions of Randomness, eh? If you predicted something "Random" then it wouldn't be errr, "Random"; This is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) on Steroids. Ahhh, "Variation" now you're talking. Artificial Selection has been accepted? ....Yes, I hope so since it's been going on for a a couple thousand years. What's next...is breathing air "evolution"?
I should state we do implement the precautionary principle when dealing with health and evolution of viruses.
Viruses are Obligate Parasites i.e., they need LIFE already established to EXIST. So you're up a creek here with the incoherent "evolution" Narrative Gloss.

Health, eh?

"The Modal Number of Professors in a Medical School who are evolutionary Biologists is ZERO". {Emphasis Mine}
Professor Randolf Nesse M.D. (Arizona State University), evolutionary biologist.

Time 27:40

So pray tell....How on Earth do Medical Professionals use evolution, telekinesis?

Appears Professor Skell was right on point...

Philip Skell PhD (Evan Pugh Professor of Chemistry Penn State University, Member of the National Academy of Sciences) and "the father of carbene chemistry"...

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

Can you explain this...

"Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used."
Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990.

Please, Go ahead.....?
Although not a precise prediction of the change that will occur, but if environment allows increased mutation
Mutations???

Meta Information (Instructions). This is Information about the Information. About 2% of Entire Genome consists of the Protein-Coding Genes with 98% devoted to Regulatory "Meta-Information". It's like a Recipe for a Cake: Ingredients (Protein-Coding Genes) List of Instructions (Meta Information).
DNA in humans (about 2 meters in length per Cell) is packed and coiled into 4 different levels of chromatin structure inside the nucleus. Each of these levels carry the "Meta Information". In fact, for every molecule of protein producing machinery there are 50 molecules of regulatory machinery.

evolution says that "Mutations" are the foundation mechanism to get from Bacteria to Boy Scouts. hmmm
Mutation: a spelling error or a change in the sequence of letters (deletion, inversion, swap, insertion, ect)

Question: If a Mutation occurs in the Protein Coding Region....How on GOD'S GREEN EARTH are you getting Matching and Functional Corresponding Mutations in the Regulatory Instructions (over 50 on a GOOD DAY!!)???

Or better said: You have a List of Ingredients for a Pineapple Upside Down Cake and the Instructions for a Unicycle and your telling me that the cake turned out perfect?

It's probably the reason why Drosophila, after years of Radiation-Induced Mutations, has Non-Functional Wings/Antenna/Legs et al growing out its Eyes/Back and Tail!!! AND IT'S STILL A FLY!

Ernst Mayr; Professor of Zoology at Harvard University...

"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation, for instance the homeotic mutant in Drosophila, is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection. Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flier. Indeed, having all the other equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all. It is a general rule, of which every geneticist and breeder can give numerous examples, that the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." {Emphasis Mine}
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p.253

"On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
Dr. Lee Spetner; Not by Chance, 31 December 1997

'‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable�; 3) “biological noise� and “survival of the luckiest� overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations, so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate.' {Emphasis Mine}
John Sanford PhD Geneticist Cornell University (Inventor of the 'Gene Gun')

Really?? .....

The authors admit that all multicellular organisms are undergoing inexorable genome decay from mutations because natural selection cannot remove the damage. {Emphasis Mine}
Baer, C.F., Miyamoto, M.M. and Denver, D.R., Mutation rate variation in multicellular eukaryotes: causes and consequences, Nature Reviews Genetics 8:619–631, 2007

"Most DNA sequences are poly-functional and so must also be poly-constrained. This means that DNA sequences have meaning on several different levels (poly-functional) and each level of meaning limits possible future change (poly-constrained). For example, imagine a sentence which has a very specific message in its normal form but with an equally coherent message when read backwards. Now let’s suppose that it also has a third message when reading every other letter, and a fourth message when a simple encryption program is used to translate it. Such a message would be poly-functional and poly-constrained. We know that misspellings in a normal sentence will not normally improve the message, but at least this would be possible. However, a poly-constrained message is fascinating, in that it cannot be improved. It can only degenerate. Any misspellings which might possibly improve the normal sentence will be disruptive to the other levels of information. Any change at all will diminish total information with absolute certainty."
Montañez, G.; Marks R.; Fernandez, J. & J. Sanford, (2013). Multiple overlapping genetic codes profoundly reduce the probability of beneficial mutation, In: Biological Information – New Perspectives (pp 139-167).

This "Poly-Functional" and 'Poly-Constrained" .....a Fourth Grade Crossword Puzzle Novice, having no clue of even how to spell "Deoxyribonucleic Acid," would not only be able to stand against the most supreme evolutionary geneticist, the 4th Grader would annihilate him with simple logic!
The idea of laws vs. theory is an interpretive one only
THANKS! You've done my work for me. Go ahead and walk into a 5th Grade General Science Class and say this....report back with comments and any Non-Verbal Communication received.
ps. Are you trying to recover from the... "if special relativity is the theory then the "theory" of general relativity is the Law, motif?? Or was it the other way around...doesn't much matter, eh?

Evolution occurs, fact, random change drives evolution, fact, exact cause for random change not yet known.
evolution..."Just So" Story, FACT!! The End.
The argument of that biochemistry cannot yet explain some protein synthesis,and development of a cell wall does not substantiate any view.
What in the World?? You think this "conjured" nonsense is an argument. So you introduce an Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy) in support of your "erroneous" Straw Man (Fallacy)?

We can't explain "some" protein synthesis, eh? Pray Tell.....?
All science has unknowns that is what drives RESEARCH to stop our pursuit stops science.
Another Straw Man (Fallacy). Who is trying to stop pursuit of "Actual" Science?

Now as per macro evolution we have a fossil record....
What's the hypothesis with dead things that died all of a sudden like? What's the Independent Variable of the TESTS...the Angle of the Shovel or your Eyelids?

“…instead of filling the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species� {Emphasis Mine}
J. H. Schwartz, Sudden Origins, New York, USA (1999) p. 89

Henry Gee PhD (Paleontology, Evolutionary Biology) Senior Editor Nature...

“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.�
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 2001, pp. 116-117

"New fossil discoveries are fitted into this preexisting story. We call these new discoveries 'missing links', as if the chain of ancestry and descent were a real object for our contemplation, and not what it really is: a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices. In reality, the physical record of human evolution is more modest. Each fossil represents an isolated point, with no knowable connection to any other given fossil, and all float around in an overwhelming sea of gaps."
Henry Gee PhD; In Search of Deep Time—Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, 2001, p. 32

Ernst Mayr PhD Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University...

"Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series."
Ernst Mayr; What Evolution Is, 2001, p.14.

Douglas Futuyma PhD (Professor evolutionary Biology)

“…one of the most striking and potentially embarrassing features of the fossil record. The majority of major groups appear suddenly in the rocks, with virtually no evidence of transition from their ancestors.�
Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, p. 82.

(Dr. Niles Eldredge Curator of Invertebrate Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History):

"Darwin's prediction of rampant, albeit gradual, change affecting all lineages through time is refuted. The record is there, and the record speaks for tremendous anatomical conservatism. Change in the manner Darwin expected is just not found in the fossil record."

We got "GAPS"...evolution of the "GAPS"!!

I suppose that takes care of "Fossils"; save for....Please explain the actual presence of Billions of Fossils and The Fossilization Process?
Substantiate what? My 12 year old daughter can summarily refute these. Did you have something specific contained within, that wasn't dragged out to the Woodshed and just Bludgeoned Senseless, you want to highlight? Wait One....OK got the Louisville Slugger ready! I'm goin YARD! and I'm callin my shot...The Babe ENOCH :thumb:

regards

Jashwell
Guru
Posts: 1592
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 5:05 am
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #319

Post by Jashwell »

Enoch2021 wrote:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication ... amide_form...
(also see citations and cited in)

What you claim doesn't appear to be the case at all.
And this is for what? Do you know what you're reading...if you even read it? Post the "Study Methods and Design" (for each CITATION) and post the "Functional" minimum 30 mer RNA.....?
No matter how many times you repeat that request, it will never be anything more than an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy.
You've got some BIG problems:

"The origin of informational polymers is not understood. The RNA polymerization process has been studied for five decades, the results showing that from preactivated precursors polymers of several tens can be obtained, as reviewed previously (1). These pioneering studies provide the proof-of-principle that RNA precursors can self-assemble yielding linear polymers. However, the prebiotic validity of a process based on complex preactivation procedures is limited (1, 2), and the problem of defining a prebiotically plausible chemical and THERMODYNAMIC scenario for the synthesis and accumulation of informational polymers remains open. THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM IS THE STANDARD STATE GIBBS FREE ENERGY CHANGE (3,4) stating that condensation reactions are very inefficient in water. Given that extant polymerizations occur in water, this is a major difficulty, only partially solved by the fact that these processes at present occur inside the active site of enzymes where water activity may be drastically reduced. The other part of the extant solution, fruit of evolution, is the use of biologically highly PREactivated triphosphate nucleotides (3). In primordia, RNA molecules had no enzymes to catalyze their chain-wise growth, and highly activated precursors can be considered as prebiotic only with difficulty." {Emphasis Mine}
http://www.jbc.org/content/284/48/33206.full

btw, the "difficulties" mentioned above are "CODE" for.... "when Pigs Fly".
to start - this wouldn't be a problem for evolution anyway.

I don't even need to have a conversation about abiological origins of proteins and such - it's not a problem for evolution.
You sure...

From two of the Fathers of evolution theory...

‘General Theory of Evolution’, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960.

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life."
Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409
We've literally had this conversation. You gave the exact same two quotes in attempt to justify the exact same point. I'm not going to repeat my response.
These are Plainly Obvious and Documented regarding the "theory". By the mere fact that you and everybody's sister feebly tries a laugher attempt to distance themselves from it (Conveniently after it was found to be a Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher) reveals the ad hoc (Fallacy)--- Pseudo Scientific Characteristic never ending Rescue Hypotheses nature of the mind numbing theory (PE/Convergent come to mind).... that contorts itself around, like an incoherent Shape Shifting fog, to any and all Falsifications, (aka: Pseudo-Science): evolution is the Poster Child.
"junk" DNA, is next in the breach (Vestigial Redux...didn't learn their lesson). In 5 years (Current Hollerings), all we'll hear is "What Junk??...we never said that".
I'm not sure what any of this is about, it just seems like rambling. It's not very clear.
“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.�
Slack, G., What neo-creationists get right—an evolutionist shares lessons he’s learned from the Intelligent Design camp, The Scientist, 20 June 2008
Abiogenesis isn't a problem for evolution, and even that quote doesn't disagree. Notice how he said evolution could theoretically explain all the way back to a "first organism" and not before that? Notice how he disagreed with the idea that it "is irrelevant to" and not "isn't necessary for"? That he said understanding the origin of life might be important for understanding the first organism?

Yet another quote offering no support.
Reactions that decrease entropy occasionally occur, as do those with a positive gibbs energy, the law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent that in sum total any more than probability prevents unlikely things from happening, rather that it's less likely and that entropy tends to increase. (let alone in local, open systems)
1. "Reactions" well these aren't any ole "Reactions"...be specific.
? This'd be like if I asked you to be specific when you raised the objection in the first place. I'm not talking specifics anyhow.
2. "Occasionally", eh? Well go ahead and Show a 30 mer "Functional" RNA or Protein.
Would this be the third or fourth time I've had to respond to this?
I don't have to.
3. "Open System"? How is this assisting PRE-biotically?
... because even if you took the whole planet as your system, energy still goes in and out? (and some mass, but even if you ignored that it'd be still be a closed system with energy transfer and not an isolated system)
Saying it's impossible and demanding proof otherwise IS an argument from ignorance.
No it's not....

Argument/Appeal to Ignorance (Fallacy)--- is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
"on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it"
You are doing this. You're saying that I need to show a "30 mer functional RNA or protein" - I don't.
I GAVE YOU EVIDENCE against "it" (DeltaG, Stereoisomerization, Oxidation, Hydrolysis, pH, Cross Reactions et al) as to why you can't SHOW IT. To refute, show EVIDENCE for "it".
You gave one objection (ΔG), which I've addressed, and hand waved other Chemistry topics as if I should be impressed by terminology.
Your objection through the use of the word information is unfounded - (this kind of) information is subjective.
What "kind of Information" is subjective? Can you show the "Subjectivity" in the physical presence of aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (or any of the Hundreds of Thousand other Protein Robots?
Molecules themselves aren't subjective. The kind of information you're thinking of is. Interpretation is what makes it information; (a system of) decoding is what makes it encoded, as opposed to scrambled. You straight up agree with the quote following this, "information only exists in the context of an interpreter", what is that if not subjective?
information only exists in the context of an interpreter
You got that right! Is there any "Interpreting" happening in a Living Cell?
Yes, there's (at the very least) basic encoding, there is delimiting and there are also control conditions.
If you don't believe it, check the sources it gives.
"You" check them and Post Them and show the Rationale where they Support "Your" argument. It's not my responsibility to prove "your" case Counselor!
I did one time, remember? That's when you complained at me for using Wikipedia.
But remember, that this was in response to you condemning anything that sources Wikipedia, and I consider my previous response perfectly appropriate.

I'm not proving my case, I'm falsifying yours. We're not even tackling the same topic any more, all your objections are to abiogenesis - not evolution.
do books become invalid once they're mentioned by Wikipedia?
Straw Man Fallacy. I never said that.
I mentioned the books (that were the sources) specifically after referencing that it was on Wikipedia. You went on to condemn Wikipedia, as if everything mentioned on it is inherently wrong, without so much as mentioning that I cited the books too. (because apparently, books that anyone can write are innately better than wikis that anyone can edit)

It was clearly rhetorical, nobody would seriously think you (or anyone else) would believe that mentioning a book on Wikipedia makes it false, that'd be absurd.
Genetic code + interpreter aren't irreducibly complex
Really? So if I remove eIF 1, everything is Good To Go, eh? How bout if I remove the: Ribosome or, tRNA's or, tRNA Synthetases or, mRNA or ----- 5' Prime Cap (Eukaryotes) or, any of the other 1,000 I could reel off....then No Problem, eh? "Functional Proteins" Galore, eh? geez. This is but "TRANSLATION", "Transcription" has another Metric Ton.
I said "Genetic code + interpreter aren't irreducibly complex", not "you can remove whatever you like from these specific interpreters and they'll still work".
genetic code can itself be catalytic if not a reactive agent, and when the interpreter could've had additional deprecated functionality
1. Do tell.....?
RNA is a catalyst and can react.
(Interesting tangent, there was a paper somewhere recently about how RNA, in some conditions, prefers forming long chains)
2. "Interpreter". I thought you said above that to be "Information" there must be an Interpreter (which is correct). Interpreter denotes: purpose, reasoning, and communication with the transmitter, Preemptively.....Intelligence! Are you saying Atoms have Intelligence?
Interpreter does not denote intelligence.
Atoms do not interpret. (to my knowledge)
"meeting" not needed - the actual pairing of value to protein is not important, it makes no difference whether a particular protein is ATG or TGC, so long as it isn't changed afterwards.

This is quite troubling on so many levels? How pray tell do you get "functional proteins" then?
Obviously the protein structure is important, but arbitrary tagging of it isn't.
Changed After what?
Once the encoding is in use.
Do you know what Functional Sequence Complexity is?
Can you speak to Protein Secondary Structure and it's importance to Functionality...?
No, but if this helps before a presumed explanation, evolution builds complexity and allows for some of the originally unlikely to become significantly more likely (because of selection pressure).
1. It's not "pairing" to proteins...it's pairing to AA's.
larger sequences can be said to be paired to proteins, though whether it's paired to acids or proteins isn't relevant for a discussion on information and encoding themselves.
"meeting" not needed - the actual pairing of value to protein is not important, it makes no difference whether a particular protein is ATG or TGC, so long as it isn't changed afterwards.
2. There are no " T's " in mRNA or tRNA.

Can I ask you something....why on Earth are you even attempting to speak to this? It's well beyond ridiculous @ this point.
but there are in DNA
the fact that the message changes encoding scheme (effectively, one possible value just loses a methyl) for processing isn't my concern
Obviously people that support abiogenesis don't think life in it's current form arose spontaneously, but rather that it has simpler life-like ancestors.
Textbook Argument from Ignorance (Fallacy). Or Please SHOW these "Life-Like" ancestors....?
Obviously people that support abiogenesis don't think life in it's current form arose spontaneously, but rather that it has simpler life-like ancestors.
Perhaps your textbook has a typo or two, or are you seriously asking me to prove that people who support abiogenesis don't think life in its current form arose spontaneously, like a wolf popping out of thin air.
You're also having difficulty discerning between "Science"....the Scientific Method. And....
Fairytales: Method.....Imagination.
All your "null hypotheses" are biased.
My goodness.

I think we're done here, don't you? Forget the questions (Please)...you're off the hook.

regards
I'm sorry but how are:
Stochastic ensembles of physical units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Dynamically-ordered sequences of individual physical units (physicality patterned by natural law causation) cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Statistically weighted means (e.g., increased availability of certain units in the polymerization environment) giving rise to patterned (compressible) sequences of units cannot program algorithmic/cybernetic function.
Computationally successful configurable switches cannot be set by chance, necessity, or any combination of the two, even over large periods of time.
Good null hypotheses in this context?

We don't have pre-existing reason to consider them impossible.
These aren't pre-existing laws or theories.
These aren't to be disproven - you should be disproving that it is possible (for the previous two reasons)

An argument from ignorance is the basis for your test.

User avatar
Excubis
Sage
Posts: 616
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 4:56 am
Location: (nowhere you probaly heard of) Saskatchewan, Canada

Re: Two potential creation scenarios

Post #320

Post by Excubis »

[Replying to post 317 by Enoch2021]


Quote:
All historical sciences, hypo.'s can be tested.
They can't, You don't have a viable Independent Variable because it's in the past...you can never VALIDATE (aka: TEST your Hypothesis). The only technique you can employ is "Inference to the best explanation"; that is: Observe the "after affects" ("Nouns") of a Volcanic Eruption. Note the ash layer in the surrounding area. When you stumble upon a similar ash layer elsewhere....make a reasonable conclusion that there must have been a Volcanic Eruption.
This isn't "Science"...a village idiot could employ this technique.
That is science absolutely, this disregard for valid and regular research techniques is awe inspiring. Disregard does not make it true it is valid whether you want to accept it or not. As per this example and subsequent village idiot is merely an appeal to ignorance. You are not substantiating anything at all.

Your continually use of observation is entirely incorrect as an act of observing a phenomenon is wrong utterly. Where in context within the method does it state such, does not say only observe. I am not confused you continually use this as a point of reference to validate you view. The attempt of appeals to ignorance and subsequent attempt to put the burden of proof on to scientific fields is in all honesty grasping at straws since this is what all fields already do.

The idea we can not validate a tree goes against very same arguments you have used. Would it be common sense to expect the TIME things occurred to change in past same as today? No common sense indicates all forces were same or very similar in the past. The attempt to change time to suit a view is not logical or common sense. Also as for a age of a tree the independent variable is Time and the dependent variable are the tree rings. The rings are dependent based on resources available to tree to grow. The random variable is the environment not the subject itself(the tree). This is a controlled experiment to ascertain the trees age in accordance to the rings. Why because we can make accurate measurements and correlate data. Yet once again only if logic and common sense apply.

Now how can I test this well it has already been done, it is fact 1 ring = 1 seasonal cycle or 1 year. This has been well verified yet changes due to species of tree. We can take a tree and grow it in a controlled environment and change amount or resources it has the rings density change in accordance yet 1 ring always represent 1 seasonal cycle or 1 year even in the lab. Verified completely now the hypo. turns to theory The age of a tree correlates to rings of growth. The measurement used of 1 ring = 1 year now becomes a law of measurement, yet basis is still a theory.

As for tree coming into existence well yes we grow trees very easy to refute. Your attempt to use philosophy while yet disavowing this field is amusing and are entirely refuting your own premise. Your logic is flawed, and all comparisons you give have only an appeal to ignorance. I have by large attempted to stay away from using such fallacy as reference since by large they are subjective when no relative default position can be agreed on.

Where does it say observation period in the method is of a phenomenon?
http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/scimeth.htm
You are in fact confused this is the testing phase and still do not need to observe phenomenon but a record of observation and observation does not mean human observation to test a compiled a record. Such as the fossil record, this anthropomorphism of observation is not true nor correct. We(humans) do not need to observe for it to be, as long as there is something to interact with something else therefore it is observed. The laws of force due not change whether a person views it or not.

You attempt to say your daughter can refute yet you only refute yourself continually.

Walking to my neighbors is entirely different experiment design than that of micro evolution. There are many designs that apply to only certain field this is not a blanket of experiments that cross fields. This view of experiment is at best an elementary explanation.
Future discoveries of predictions of Randomness, eh? If you predicted something "Random" then it wouldn't be errr, "Random"; This is Non-Sequitur (Fallacy) on Steroids. Ahhh, "Variation" now you're talking. Artificial Selection has been accepted? ....Yes, I hope so since it's been going on for a a couple thousand years. What's next...is breathing air "evolution"?
Okay well Darwin predicted that a life form would be found that fed on the "Darwin Orchid" and guess what the moth was found later that only feeds on this orchid. This prediction was not specific but was still a prediction. Random change finds a solution over time. If enough time is available random change becomes the solution if it was guided by an I.D. the solution would not need to be random. This is also not trial and error, because the trial(mutations) do not follow a course to achieve the solution. When an I.D. is involved in trial and error the epidemiology(so to say)follows a course to solve the problem this is not true in observations(testing) of single celled amoebas or yeast, there is no pattern to mutation, the change frequency quickens but does not follow a trial and error path to the solution. Same mutation will occur often even though not a valid solution.

Okay quotes of opinion do not substantiate a or disprove science, work does such as research studies ect.. I will not use quotes of opinion to debate science this should be left to philosophy and other fields that are thought or opinion driven. You continually want to use science than use science not opinions of scientist but their studies. An opinion is very similar to a hypo. working theories is what science uses not opinion. Studies, papers, and experiments as reference not quotes.

You continually use insults as well 5 grade science class well yeah you as well. Just because you can quote technical material does not mean you understand. This is my issue with no real time debate. Anyone on the net can sound like they know what they are talking about yet in large many are goggle experts. I wish there was a real time verbal debate thread than perhaps we could initiate in such an en devour. The mere fact you result to insult shows the very lack of academia you possess I have only encountered this with YEC individuals who truly do not know what they are saying. You are wrong your logic goes against it's own argument often. Your attempts at sounding of a authority are raveled in ignorance to actual scientific method. No scientist uses quote to substantiate a scientific view they use studies period to have the audacity to make such claims on quotes from books not peer reviewed papers is not evident of one in a scientific field. I do not need to be a chemist to see this in your posting is self evident.

Once again word play on mutation, you specificity when quoting on genetics is tiring. You apply such specificity to biochemistry but not to the methodology and subsequent jargon found within. This is self apparent you truly do not know what you are stating. To use word play in the scientific method is not scientific but once again an appeal of ignorance. Mutation is a valid word used if you want to take not on accepted nomenclature well go ahead but only those ignorant of the method will agree.

Also with the self justifying pat on the back you continually give your self is not indicative of an academic in a natural science at all. Go ahead feel like you've won, your word play is apparent and you logic fights itself. Your comparisons lack a true sense of understanding and knowledge. I would suggest going to multiple scientific forums and pose your specific biochemistry and genetic views and see what happens. I would like to meet you there and see what real biochemist, biologist ect.. have to say to refute your specificity maybe here http://www.protocol-online.org/forums/f ... chemistry/ I will look forward to you posing such things toward those who work or study such a field. Majority of those in the Hard Sciences do not come to debate forums on science and religion simply because this is not a scientific debate at all, science has no sides only people do.
"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." Albert Einstein

Post Reply