In order to make proteins, you need coded, specified, complex information. To make the minimal gene set and proteins for the first cell, , the alternative to design is chance, since evolution only starts with replication.But it is not "chance" - your thinking is based on a false premise. Thus in error. And I believe they call what you are doing: An Argument From Incredulity Only cure for that is to learn from sources that have had a change to learn more than you know. Try it sometime it's a beautiful wonder filled adventure.
In order to make proteins, you need coded, specified, complex information. To make the minimal gene set and proteins for the first cell, , the alternative to design is chance, since evolution only starts with replication.But it is not "chance" - your thinking is based on a false premise. Thus in error. And I believe they call what you are doing: An Argument From Incredulity Only cure for that is to learn from sources that have had a change to learn more than you know. Try it sometime it's a beautiful wonder filled adventure. If its not chance , what is it ? Argument from incredulity http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1724-argument-from-incredulity#2738 Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous. It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world. When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity. Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points. This kind of arguments are frequent : how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true) how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution) All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak. When a person accuses opposing arguments of incredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving and being skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attempts to evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with alleged evidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists. IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it is actually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.
If its not chance , what is it ?Natural selection.
how could natural selection act prior dna replication ?
how could natural selection act prior dna replication ?Already tried explaining, you need to do more learning. Start with those talks by Hazen - he addresses that question. Then start with honestly representing what biologists are telling us and arguing those points, rather than erecting straw men to burn down. ______________________________________________________________________________ Actually here are a couple where he more directly responds to your questions
ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE CarnegieInstitution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Streamed live on Nov 12, 2015 NOTE: the lecture begins at the 13:20 minutes mark. Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents". Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years.
The Origins of Life VillanovaUniversity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fEaM4ouQ8k Published on Oct 25, 2013 Dr. Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution for Science ( http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/ ) will discuss evidence about the origins of life almost 4 billion years ago. Dr. Hazen is author of Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins; as well as The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 Billion Years, from Stardust to Living Planet, and many other books and articles. How did the hydrogen that formed soon after the Big Bang 13.82 billion years ago, the carbon and oxygen forged in stars at least 5 billion years ago, and other elements and molecules combine to form the first life on earth?I imagine those are probably pretty much the same talk, I haven't had a chance to get to them, but imagine they reviews stuff I've read in his earlier book.
how could natural selection act prior dna replication ?Already tried explaining, you need to do more learning. Start with those talks by Hazen - he addresses that question. Then start with honestly representing what biologists are telling us and arguing those points, rather than erecting straw men to burn down. ______________________________________________________________________________ Actually here are a couple where he more directly responds to your questions
ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE CarnegieInstitution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Streamed live on Nov 12, 2015 NOTE: the lecture begins at the 13:20 minutes mark. Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents". Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years.
The Origins of Life VillanovaUniversity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fEaM4ouQ8k Published on Oct 25, 2013 Dr. Robert Hazen of the Carnegie Institution for Science ( http://hazen.gl.ciw.edu/ ) will discuss evidence about the origins of life almost 4 billion years ago. Dr. Hazen is author of Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life's Origins; as well as The Story of Earth: The First 4.5 Billion Years, from Stardust to Living Planet, and many other books and articles. How did the hydrogen that formed soon after the Big Bang 13.82 billion years ago, the carbon and oxygen forged in stars at least 5 billion years ago, and other elements and molecules combine to form the first life on earth?I imagine those are probably pretty much the same talk, I haven't had a chance to get to them, but imagine they reviews stuff I've read in his earlier book. oh look...... http://heyevent.com/event/2z5sopr3ov2moa/robert-hazen-chance-necessity-and-the-origins-of-life
Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents".When you see a book like Hamlet, do you also think it was the result of a frozen accident ?
Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years.I dont know any other..... if you know, feel free to mention. In my view, all explanations fall basically just in two categories : Intelligence, and non intelligence. Chance, physical necessity , and evolution, fall all under non intelligent causes. Special creation falls into intelligence.
In my view, all explanations fall basically just in two categories : Intelligence, and non intelligence. Chance, physical necessity , and evolution, fall all under non intelligent causes. Special creation falls into intelligence.So what is your point? Are you saying an intelligent agent started life?
oh look...... http://heyevent.com/event/2z5sopr3ov2moa/robert-hazen-chance-necessity-and-the-origins-of-life (A)(A) You gotta do better than reading one paragraph and thinking now you know it all. (B) How in the world is Hamlet like evolution? (Besides creative writing is all about capturing the accidental observations and thoughts of a day and making something more of them.) (C) Any other what? (D) Perhaps you need to broaden your tunnel vision? All you're doing is coming up with excuses to allow you to ignore the evidence. Because your desperately trying to defend your preconceived assumptions. That is not what learning is about? Learning is about absorbing as much information as possible and allowing the information to determine one's provisional beliefs. But than Christian types (I've no idea what you are, so now I'm speaking in generalities) have a real thing with believing in CERTITUDE - even if it's a make-believe certitude.Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents".When you see a book like Hamlet, do you also think it was the result of a frozen accident ? (B)Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years.I dont know any other.....(C) if you know, feel free to mention. In my view,(D) all explanations fall basically just in two categories : Intelligence, and non intelligence. Chance, physical necessity , and evolution, fall all under non intelligent causes. Special creation falls into intelligence.
In my view, all explanations fall basically just in two categories : Intelligence, and non intelligence. Chance, physical necessity , and evolution, fall all under non intelligent causes. Special creation falls into intelligence.So what is your point? Are you saying an intelligent agent started life? yes.
oh look...... http://heyevent.com/event/2z5sopr3ov2moa/robert-hazen-chance-necessity-and-the-origins-of-life (A)(A) You gotta do better than reading one paragraph and thinking now you know it all. (B) How in the world is Hamlet like evolution? (Besides creative writing is all about capturing the accidental observations and thoughts of a day and making something more of them.) (C) Any other what? (D) Perhaps you need to broaden your tunnel vision? All you're doing is coming up with excuses to allow you to ignore the evidence. Because your desperately trying to defend your preconceived assumptions. That is not what learning is about? Learning is about absorbing as much information as possible and allowing the information to determine one's provisional beliefs. But than Christian types (I've no idea what you are, so now I'm speaking in generalities) have a real thing with believing in CERTITUDE - even if it's a make-believe certitude. Crick used the frozen accident explanation because evolution is not a answer at this stage. Evolution begins only after dna replication is in place. So you have a nice job to explain without evolution, how the first living cell arose. The software, and the hardware. here some read for you: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design?highlight=softwareEarth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents".When you see a book like Hamlet, do you also think it was the result of a frozen accident ? (B)Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years.I dont know any other.....(C) if you know, feel free to mention. In my view,(D) all explanations fall basically just in two categories : Intelligence, and non intelligence. Chance, physical necessity , and evolution, fall all under non intelligent causes. Special creation falls into intelligence.
Evolution begins only after dna replication is in place.Whatever gave you that notion? You obviously have much more to learn, but that's a challenge when you've convinced yourself you've got it all figured out and that you believe it must be all the experts who seriously study these things who are deluded.
Evolution begins only after dna replication is in place.Whatever gave you that notion? You obviously have much more to learn, but that's a challenge when you've convinced yourself you've got it all figured out and that you believe it must be all the experts who seriously study these things who are deluded. i think , who has to leard, is you. For a nonliving system, questions about irreducible complexity are even more challenging for a totally natural non-design scenario, because natural selection — which is the main mechanism of Darwinian evolution — cannot exist until a system can reproduce. 17 For an origin of life we can think about the minimal complexity that would be required for reproduction and other basic life-functions. Most scientists think this would require hundreds of biomolecular parts, not just the five parts in a simple mousetrap or in my imaginary LMNOP system. And current science has no plausible theories to explain how the minimal complexity required for life (and the beginning of biological natural selection) could have been produced by natural process before the beginning of biological natural selection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766961 Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. Without replications, no mutations, no natural selection, no evolution.
here some read for you: http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2221-the-hardware-and-software-of-the-cell-evidence-of-design?highlight=softwareWhy? When right off, they try blowing nonsense up my keister.
This constitutes a minimal set of basic parts, superficially described. If one, just ONE of these parts is missing, the cell will not operate. That constitutes a interdependent , interlocked and irreducibly complex biological system of extraordinary complexity, which had to arise ALL AT ONCE. No step by step build up over a long period of time is possible.How about reading something a bit more informative, if challenging?
How life evolved: 10 steps to the first cells DAILY NEWS 14 October 2009 We may never be able to prove beyond any doubt how life first evolved. But of the many explanations proposed, one stands out – the idea that life evolved in hydrothermal vents deep under the sea. Not in the superhot black smokers, but more placid affairs known as alkaline hydrothermal vents. This theory can explain life’s strangest feature, and there is growing evidence to support it. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17987-how-life-evolved-10-steps-to-the-first-cells/
The Origin and Evolution of Cells Cells are divided into two main classes, initially defined by whether they contain a nucleus. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria) lack a nuclear envelope; eukaryotic cells have a nucleus in which the genetic material is separated from the cytoplasm. Prokaryotic cells are generally smaller and simpler than eukaryotic cells; in addition to the absence of a nucleus, their genomes are less complex and they do not contain cytoplasmic organelles or a cytoskeleton (Table 1.1). In spite of these differences, the same basic molecular mechanisms govern the lives of both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, indicating that all present-day cells are descended from a single primordial ancestor. How did this first cell develop? And how did the complexity and diversity exhibited by present-day cells evolve? Figure 1.1 Time scale of evolution. The scale indicates the approximate times at which some of the major events in the evolution of cells are thought to have occurred. Figure 1.2 Spontaneous formation of organic molecules. Water vapor was refluxed through an atmosphere consisting of CH4, NH3, and H2, into which electric sparks were discharged. Analysis of the reaction products revealed the formation of a variety of organic molecules, (more…) Figure 1.3 Self-replication of RNA. Complementary pairing between nucleotides (adenine [A] with uracil [U] and guanine [G] with cytosine [C]) allows one strand of RNA to serve as a template for the synthesis of a new strand with the complementary sequence. Figure 1.4 Enclosure of self-replicating RNA in a phospholipid membrane. The first cell is thought to have arisen by the enclosure of self-replicating RNA and associated molecules in a membrane composed of phospholipids. Each phospholipid molecule has two long hydrophobic (more...) Figure 1.5 Generation of metabolic energy. Glycolysis is the anaerobic breakdown of glucose to lactic acid. Photosynthesis utilizes energy from sunlight to drive the synthesis of glucose from CO2 and H2O, with the release of O2 as a by-product. The O2 released by (more...) Figure 1.6 Electron micrograph of E. coli. The cell is surrounded by a cell wall, within which is the plasma membrane. DNA is located in the nucleoid. (Menge and Wurtz/Biozentrum, University of Basel/Science Photo Library/Photo Researchers, Inc.) Figure 1.7 Structures of animal and plant cells. Both animal and plant cells are surrounded by a plasma membrane and contain a nucleus, a cytoskeleton, and many cytoplasmic organelles in common. Plant cells are also surrounded by a cell wall and contain chloroplasts (more…) Figure 1.8 Evolution of cells. Present-day cells evolved from a common prokaryotic ancestor along three lines of descent, giving rise to archaebacteria, eubacteria, and eukaryotes. Mitochondria and chloroplasts originated from the endosymbiotic association of aerobic (more...) and so on . . . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9841/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0_0/endosymbiosis_04 Evidence for endosymbiosis Biologist Lynn Margulis first made the case for endosymbiosis in the 1960s, but for many years other biologists were skeptical. Although Jeon watched his amoebae become infected with the x-bacteria and then evolve to depend upon them, no one was around over a billion years ago to observe the events of endosymbiosis. Why should we think that a mitochondrion used to be a free-living organism in its own right? It turns out that many lines of evidence support this idea. Most important are the many striking similarities between prokaryotes (like bacteria) and mitochondria: ~ ~ ~ http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/_0/endosymbiosis_03 From prokaryotes to eukaryotes 3 domains Living things have evolved into three large clusters of closely related organisms, called "domains": Archaea, Bacteria, and Eukaryota. Archaea and Bacteria are small, relatively simple cells surrounded by a membrane and a cell wall, with a circular strand of DNA containing their genes. They are called prokaryotes. Virtually all the life we see each day — including plants and animals — belongs to the third domain, Eukaryota. Eukaryotic cells are more complex than prokaryotes, and the DNA is linear and found within a nucleus. Eukaryotic cells boast their own personal "power plants", called mitochondria. These tiny organelles in the cell not only produce chemical energy, but also hold the key to understanding the evolution of the eukaryotic cell.
Adonai888, does God hear your prayers?
Adonai888, does God hear your prayers?please do not waste my time.
Adonai888, does God hear your prayers?please do not waste my time.It's a simple honest question. You don't have to go getting all uppity and superior on me. :kiss:
For a nonliving system, questions about irreducible complexity are even more challenging for a totally natural non-design scenario, because natural selection — which is the main mechanism of Darwinian evolution — cannot exist until a system can reproduce. 17 For an origin of life we can think about the minimal complexity that would be required for reproduction and other basic life-functions. Most scientists think this would require hundreds of biomolecular parts, not just the five parts in a simple mousetrap or in my imaginary LMNOP system. And current science has no plausible theories to explain how the minimal complexity required for life (and the beginning of biological natural selection) could have been produced by natural process before the beginning of biological natural selection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766961 Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. Without replications, no mutations, no natural selection, no evolution.Adonai, that's a mantra! Has nothing to do with learning about what we see around us!
ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents". Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years.You did help me crystalize a thought. The difference between your type of approach and a more serious scientific type approach is that you spend all our energy trying to defend your point, while trying to dismiss the "opposition's" evidence and argument. Whereas the scientific approach remains focused on the string of evidence and the issues at hand. The scientific approach even leaves room for entertaining wild notions, but then expects evidence and facts to support those wild notions or they are relegated to thought-experiments that have done their duty, but deserve to be retired. You on the other hand will cling to your beliefs and arguments with a tenacity that demands you ignore most of the information you are offered. There is something other than the facts at the foundation of your convictions. I gave up on certitude a long time ago and find myself content with trying to comprehend what I can witness. … that includes absorbing the experiences and knowledge of others.
For a nonliving system, questions about irreducible complexity are even more challenging for a totally natural non-design scenario, because natural selection — which is the main mechanism of Darwinian evolution — cannot exist until a system can reproduce. 17 For an origin of life we can think about the minimal complexity that would be required for reproduction and other basic life-functions. Most scientists think this would require hundreds of biomolecular parts, not just the five parts in a simple mousetrap or in my imaginary LMNOP system. And current science has no plausible theories to explain how the minimal complexity required for life (and the beginning of biological natural selection) could have been produced by natural process before the beginning of biological natural selection. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9766961 Heredity is guaranteed by faithful DNA replication whereas evolution depends upon errors accompanying DNA replication. Without replications, no mutations, no natural selection, no evolution.Adonai, that's a mantra! Has nothing to do with learning about what we see around us!
ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Earth's 4.5 billion year history is a complex tale of deterministic physical and chemical processes, as well as "frozen accidents". Most models of life's origins also invoke chance and necessity. Recent research adds two important insights to this discussion. First, chance versus necessity is an inherently false dichotomy--a range of probabilities exists for many natural events. Second, given the astonishing combinatorial chemical richness of early Earth, events that are extremely rare may, nevertheless, be deterministic on time scales of a billion years.You did help me crystalize a thought. The difference between your type of approach and a more serious scientific type approach is that you spend all our energy trying to defend your point, while trying to dismiss the "opposition's" evidence and argument. Whereas the scientific approach remains focused on the string of evidence and the issues at hand. The scientific approach even leaves room for entertaining wild notions, but then expects evidence and facts to support those wild notions or they are relegated to thought-experiments that have done their duty, but deserve to be retired. You on the other hand will cling to your beliefs and arguments with a tenacity that demands you ignore most of the information you are offered. There is something other than the facts at the foundation of your convictions. I gave up on certitude a long time ago and find myself content with trying to comprehend what I can witness. … that includes absorbing the experiences and knowledge of others. i am unimpressed. refute my claims based on solid science and we talk.
i am unimpressed. refute my claims based on solid science and we talk.
In my view, all explanations fall basically just in two categories : Intelligence, and non intelligence. Chance, physical necessity , and evolution, fall all under non intelligent causes. Special creation falls into intelligence.So what is your point? Are you saying an intelligent agent started life? yes. Let's see here. You look at basic organisms/organelles, and are convinced they are way, way too complicated to have evolved out of the primal ooze. You seem absolutely certain of that. You tell us an intelligent agent must have been necessary. You are certain of it. Now you tell me you want to argue based on "solid science" - that's precious. Besides, I shared all sorts of solid science in preceding posts, and you batted them all down as, as, . . . as though they were nothing. Well what was wrong with that information - like the various steps that were outlined? You think you can really ignore all that and think you got a handle on anything - That's not doing science, that's smoke'n mirrors bud. I do understand, it's probably overwhelming being hit with it all that at one time, me I've had the advantage of being interested in this stuff all my life, and just like evolution, small tidbits of information along the journey add up to big things, given enough time.
i am unimpressed. refute my claims based on solid science and we talk.Well what was wrong with that information - like the various steps that were outlined? What is wrong is that they claim something to be possible, which has already shown to be impossible. But if you want to believe in pseudo science, be it. Its your life, its your eternity. the top problems are outlined here : http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/top_five_probl067431.html Abiogenesis is impossible Mondore, The Code Word What is the probability of complex biochemicals like proteins and DNA arising by chance alone? The chance that amino acids would line up randomly to create the first hemoglobin protein is 1 in 10^850. The chance that the DNA code to produce that hemoglobin protein would have randomly reached the required specificity is 1 in 10^78,000. ― Stephen C. Meyer, Darwinism, Design and Public Education “The information contained in an English sentence or computer software does not derive from the chemistry of the ink or the physics of magnetism, but from a source extrinsic to physics and chemistry altogether. Indeed, in both cases, the message transcends the properties of the medium. The information in DNA also transcends the properties of its material medium."