deleted again. Sorry. Maybe I should have a cup of coffee.While you have the coffee, you may want to watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology If you let it run to the next presentations, you can feast your eyes on more illustrations of unseen biology.
deleted again. Sorry. Maybe I should have a cup of coffee.While you have the coffee, you may want to watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology If you let it run to the next presentations, you can feast your eyes on more illustrations of unseen biology. Awesome.
Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems. Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts. Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example.The only intelligent causes that "have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts" have been from physical entities with a central nervous system. The mind is a product the brain. On the one hand, you are arguing that only intelligent agents have been observed to have the ability to create "irreducibly" complex systems. Not withstanding the controversy surrounding the existence of irreducibly complex systems, you seem to accept that observation is key here. On the other hand, you are arguing for some sort of disembodied Mind to create biological systems, although observation has demonstrated that the minimum requirement to having a mind is by having a brain(or in the case with AI, something analogous). The parodox here is that in order for some sort of god to create biological systems, it would have to be physical like us, which would hardly make it a god.
I say there’s 2 kinds of people.
People who think some things are irreducible.
and people who think that everything can be reduced down into parts.
My guess is the first group has no real understanding of chemistry for starters.
The title to this thread should be: “DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies my understanding of naturalistic explanations.”
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.Where do you get the idea that a mind is not complex? The mind has to have billions of separate connections in order to allow us to think, to feel, to reason (at least for us physical entities). Let me see if I have this -- you're claiming that a very, very simple Intelligent Entity managed to give rise to an entire universe full of incredibly complex entities, each of which is much MORE complex than itself, in apparent defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Isn't that what the theory of evolution postulates (that simple things gave rise to more complex things)? Furthermore, didn't you yourself argue that in spite of all our searching, we've never managed to come up with a theory about how such a thing is possible? After all, that is the reason you rejected the theory of evolution, isn't it?
God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.Where do you get the idea that a mind is not complex? The mind has to have billions of separate connections in order to allow us to think, to feel, to reason (at least for us physical entities). Let me see if I have this -- you're claiming that a very, very simple Intelligent Entity managed to give rise to an entire universe full of incredibly complex entities, each of which is much MORE complex than itself, in apparent defiance of the Second Law of Thermodynamics? Isn't that what the theory of evolution postulates (that simple things gave rise to more complex things)? Furthermore, didn't you yourself argue that in spite of all our searching, we've never managed to come up with a theory about how such a thing is possible? After all, that is the reason you rejected the theory of evolution, isn't it? the mind is not the brain. The mind is not made by physical parts. The mind is a completely different entity than the brain. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1662-the-mind-is-not-the-brain?highlight=mind
I say there's 2 kinds of people. People who think some things are irreducible. and people who think that everything can be reduced down into parts. My guess is the first group has no real understanding of chemistry for starters. The title to this thread should be: "DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology that defies my understanding of naturalistic explanations."you can reduce anything into parts, down to the atomic scale. But you cannot keep the original function.
deleted again. Sorry. Maybe I should have a cup of coffee.While you have the coffee, you may want to watch this: http://www.ted.com/talks/drew_berry_animations_of_unseeable_biology If you let it run to the next presentations, you can feast your eyes on more illustrations of unseen biology. Awesome. Indeed it is. have you thought about how the complexity in that video came to be. Have a look just at one enzyme, which is ESSENTIAL for all life forms, and which had to exist prior when life began. Topoisomerases. Look the amazing mechanistic aspect. How they do theyr job of separate the entangled chromosomes. And then think about, how it could have emerged by chance..... https://bioslawek.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/numern-5.gif?w=450&h=450 http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2111-topoisomerase-ii-enzymes-amazing-evidence-of-design?highlight=topoisomerase
Adonai88 - maybe you’ll respond to my question. The others never did. I’ll grant you that there’s an intelligent designer. Prove to us that that designer is a) perfect, b) the Christian god and no other, and c) not just an inconceivably superior alien that is not a god. And saying “it says so in the bible” doesn’t count. That’s circular reasoning and regardless doesn’t address point B or C.
Until you prove this, you’re just typing words buddy.
Adonai88 - maybe you'll respond to my question. The others never did. I'll grant you that there's an intelligent designer. Prove to us that that designer is a) perfect, b) the Christian god and no other, and c) not just an inconceivably superior alien that is not a god. And saying "it says so in the bible" doesn't count. That's circular reasoning and regardless doesn't address point B or C. Until you prove this, you're just typing words buddy.I cannot prove you that God is perfect, nor that it is the christian God. Thats a matter of faith. Not blind faith, but reasonable faith based on the evidence. If it were Aliens, we would have to ask what created them. And if you ask for proofs, why do you not ask for proofs, that the natural world is all there is ?
you can reduce anything into parts, down to the atomic scale. But you cannot keep the original function.Well you can go deeper than the atomic scale but that's not important. So you can't keep the original function? So what? If you take apart a radio you can't keep it's original function either. Unless you study cellular biology or mitochondrial biology etc..all of this will seem to defy naturalistic explanations. Have you yourself studied these areas and hit a wall in your understanding? I'm guessing there are resources for you to further your understanding. When you get down far enough it's very complicated chemistry. It's not looking at stuff in microscopes anymore at that point.
Look the amazing mechanistic aspect. How they do theyr job of separate the entangled chromosomes. And then think about, how it could have emerged by chance.....By chance? Why would a god who could do anything and make anything bother with such complicated stuff. He could have just modeled us out of clay. I could be just solid clay and yet be sentient and automatic. Why bother with cells and nerves and blood etc... You said above that god is not complicated. So why would he go through all this trouble of DNA for example? I could be a clay person who acts just like I act now, frogs could be clay frogs that act just like they do now. Most of the clay people believe in god, some of the clay people don't believe in god. Oh that wouldn't work would it? Because then everybody would believe in god. Everybody would probably believe in the same god. Because if we were all made of clay god would probably come around and show himself. god would come around once in awhile and show us all the big mountain of clay. "Look my little children, here's the great holy clay mountain where you all came from. I take a little ball of clay and fashioned you all into existence."
Adonai88 - maybe you'll respond to my question. The others never did. I'll grant you that there's an intelligent designer. Prove to us that that designer is a) perfect, b) the Christian god and no other, and c) not just an inconceivably superior alien that is not a god. And saying "it says so in the bible" doesn't count. That's circular reasoning and regardless doesn't address point B or C. Until you prove this, you're just typing words buddy.Why do you grant an *intelligent designer*? Why not a *mathematical function*? Even a *brainless* amoeba such as slime mold knows what you can do with a few mathematical functions. You don't have to be Intelligently designed at all in order to *function* in a successful manner in nature. But your system must function mathematically correct or you get sick. This mathematical law applies to all things. Real or unreal. This emphasis of a higher intelligence and motivated designer wich must create irreducible complex systems to make it all work, seems an inherently false statement, when we know that it all can be broken down mathematically into smaller and smaller components and values, So small, they become fuzzy and only the potential Implicate values remain, yet must be able to act in accordance to the mathematical function. moreover, if an irreducible complex system can evolve, then it is no longer irreducibkly complex. ID proposes a self-contradictory concept. Accrding to ID, the universe itself is an irreducible complex system based on the mathematical function of the irreducibly complex system.(a mathematical construct. a) an irreducible complex system is all there is, and we know this is not true. b) an irreducible complexity able to evolove proposes a contradictory duality c) an irreducible simple mathematical equation, a fundamental law of coming into existence , that allows evolution of complxity from the infinititely subtle to gross expresseion in reality. My pick is *c)*
Unless you study cellular biology or mitochondrial biology etc..Molecular biology and genetics is what i most study. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2157-the-transport-of-proteins-into-mitochondria-is-a-interdependent-complex-system?highlight=mitochondria
Unless you study cellular biology or mitochondrial biology etc..Molecular biology and genetics is what i most study. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2157-the-transport-of-proteins-into-mitochondria-is-a-interdependent-complex-system?highlight=mitochondria Well great then you should have an excellent view of causality. You just either reach one of two points: a. The research goes into areas that are not yet fully understood scientifically; b. it all seems too amazing to have formed from a planet that was formed from a giant ball of molten rock and gases. either way you attribute it to an intelligent design or god. Which you would not have done at this stage of history had it not been for the preconceived notion of god you learned about at some point in your childhood. An idea that certainly would have been relevant and plausible up until the 1700s or so at max. But for numerous reasons it was useful to keep this god-concept alive. Now we have you on this forum trying to keep the old ways alive. Don't forget a. or b. right above.
design.This tired argument has used to support religion and gods since the beginning of time ie. What we don't understand can only be explained by the existence of a supernatural being. The argument relies on a supreme lack of imagination and complete ignorance of the history of science. Is intelligent design and irreducible complexity merely an "argument from ignorance? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1720-is-intelligent-design-merely-an-argument-from-ignorance#3320 In an explanatory context, arguments from ignorance have the form: Premise One: Cause X cannot produce or explain evidence E. Conclusion: Therefore, cause Y produced or explains E. Critics of intelligent design claim that the argument for intelligent design takes this form as well. As one of my frequent debating partners, Michael Shermer, likes to argue, "Intelligent design argues that life is too specifically complex (complex structures like DNA) to have evolved by natural forces. Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent designer." In short, critics claim that ID proponents argue as follows: Premise One: Material causes cannot produce or explain specified information. Conclusion: Therefore, an intelligent cause produced specified biological information. If proponents of intelligent design were arguing in the preceding manner, they would be guilty of arguing from ignorance. But the argument takes the following form: Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent biological systems. Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information, irreducible and interdependent systems of all sorts. Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information and irreducible complexity in the cell, and interdependence of proteins, organelles, and bodyparts, and even of animals and plants, aka moths and flowers, for example. Or to put it more formally, the case for intelligent design made here has the form: Premise One: Causes A through X do not produce evidence E. Premise Two: Cause Y can and does produce E. Conclusion: Y explains E better than A through X. 1. High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2. Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. TRANSLATION: 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought– So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came wiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And hast thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!" He chortled in his joy. 'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe.
Unless you study cellular biology or mitochondrial biology etc..Molecular biology and genetics is what i most study. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2157-the-transport-of-proteins-into-mitochondria-is-a-interdependent-complex-system?highlight=mitochondria Well great then you should have an excellent view of causality. You just either reach one of two points: a. The research goes into areas that are not yet fully understood scientifically; b. it all seems too amazing to have formed from a planet that was formed from a giant ball of molten rock and gases. either way you attribute it to an intelligent design or god. Which you would not have done at this stage of history had it not been for the preconceived notion of god you learned about at some point in your childhood. An idea that certainly would have been relevant and plausible up until the 1700s or so at max. But for numerous reasons it was useful to keep this god-concept alive. Now we have you on this forum trying to keep the old ways alive. Don't forget a. or b. right above. I do not infer God based on ignorance, but on what we do know as shown already Michael Behe’s testable predictions regarding Irreducible Complexity. Molecular biologist Jonathan McLatchie wrote : An irreducibly complex system is one that (a) the removal of a protein renders the molecular machine inoperable, and (b) the biochemical structure has no stepwise evolutionary pathway. Michael Behe further describes the condition: “An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin’s Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002. Source: http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840). In other words, natural selection is not capable of selecting given mutations. But even lets argue that natural selection selects neutral ( not deteriorative mutations ) and fixes them into the population. In case of the chlorophyll pathway, it had to specify the pathway of 17 intermediate steps, in case of heme 8. Not only had it to select the right highly specific pathway sequence , it had to have the enzymes readily available for recruitment, which in our case would not be possible, until the given enzymes had evolved as well with gene duplication , mutation, and natural selection, but if available, the enzymes had to be available all at the same time. Furthermore, the selected parts had all be made available at the same ‘construction site,’ perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. The enzymes must work in a coordenated, just the right way. One enzyme picking up the product of the previous step at the right place. Like in a factory production line, one worker handles the part, builds in or advances its construction by adding or mounting a part, and afterwards handles it over to the next craftsman for the next manufacturing step. In order to do so, it must know where to handle it over, and do it in a chronological sequenced way. In case of your biosynthesis pathway, all this must be previously be programmed in the genome, and happen like in robotics, in a automated way without external intervention, because prevously programmed. On the one side you have a intelligent agency based system of irreducible complexity of tight integrated , information rich functional systems which have ready on hand energy directed for such, that routinely generate the sort of phenomenon being observed. And on the other side imagine a golfer, who has played a golf ball through an 12 hole course. Can you imagine that the ball could also play itself around the course in his absence ? Of course, we could not discard, that natural forces, like wind , tornadoes or rains or storms could produce the same result, given enough time. the chances against it however are so immense, that the suggestion implies that the non-living world had an innate desire to get through the 12 hole course.
Unless you study cellular biology or mitochondrial biology etc..Molecular biology and genetics is what i most study. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2157-the-transport-of-proteins-into-mitochondria-is-a-interdependent-complex-system?highlight=mitochondria Then you must be working with lots of numbers and combinations of numbers. Very mathematical I'm sure.
Don’t confuse origin of life with blind chance. Different atoms have different properties. The nascent field of abiogenesis deals with this directly, where it studies how molecules essential to life were formed and how the first cell came into existence. There is likely to be many missing links in the chain from atoms to cells, many pre-cell variants (and/or other types of cells) that haven’t survived. These missing links would make the cell appear like they have sprung into existence. Much like creationists that had(and some still have) difficulty with the idea that homo sapiens shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees, but the evidence is now uncontroversial with DNA analysis and the discovery of many hominid and australopithecus species, except we are dealing with a much larger knowledge gap.
But there is much hope for future investigation! I think abiogenesis is an exciting field full of possibilities.
I do not infer God based on ignorance, but on what we do know as shown already Michael Behe’s testable predictions regarding Irreducible Complexity. Molecular biologist Jonathan McLatchie wrote : An irreducibly complex system is one that (a) the removal of a protein renders the molecular machine inoperable, and (b) the biochemical structure has no stepwise evolutionary pathway. Michael Behe further describes the condition:Wikipedia says with footnotes that M Behe is a Professor at Lehigh U. in PA. It says Lehigh had to issue a paper saying that the school does not agree with Behe's views. I'm not going to pretend I know enough about Molecular Biology or DNA and Cellular Biochemistry to carry on this conversation.