What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?
Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ?
Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book, or produce the hardware and software of a computer ?
The cell is like a factory, that has various computer like hierarchically organized systems of hardware and software, various language based informational systems, a translation system, hudge amounts of precise instructional/specified, complex information stored and extract systems to make all parts needed to produce the factory and replicate itself, the scaffold structure, that permits the build of the indispensable protection wall, form and size of its building, walls with gates that permits cargo in and out, recognition mechanisms that let only the right cargo in, has specific sites and production lines, “employees”, busy and instructed to produce all kind of necessary products, parts and subparts with the right form and size through the right materials, others which mount the parts together in the right order, on the right place, in the right sequence, at the right time, which has sophisticated check and error detection mechanisms all along the production process, the hability to compare correctly produced parts to faulty ones and discard the faulty ones, and repeat the process to make the correct ones; highways and cargo carriers that have tags which recognize where to drop the cargo where its needed, cleans up waste and has waste bins and sophisticated recycle mechanisms, storage departments, produces its energy and shuttles it to where its needed, and last not least, does reproduce itself.
The salient thing is that the individual parts and compartments have no function by their own. They had to emerge ALL AT ONCE, No stepwise manner is possible, all systems are INTERDEPENDENT and IRREDUCIBLE. And it could not be through evolution, since evolution depends on fully working self replicating cells, in order to function.
How can someone rationally argue that the origin of the most sophisticated factory in the universe would be probable to be based on natural occurence, without involving any guiding intelligence ?
To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis
What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?
Your question implies that you think the first cell was the first life. There was quite a bit going on before that, and it helps explain why the comparison to junk yards and airplanes is not relevant.
Evolution of the cell]
The old junk yard airplane argument is absurd as well as not relevant. Why people say evolution didn’t take place yet fail to even mention the age of our universe dismays me. Given enough time, quantum mechanics tells us almost anything could happen given time. And there has already been a hell of a lot of time with even more to come.
What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ? Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ? Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book, or produce the hardware and software of a computer ? The cell is like a factory, that has various computer like hierarchically organized systems of hardware and software, various language based informational systems, a translation system, hudge amounts of precise instructional/specified, complex information stored and extract systems to make all parts needed to produce the factory and replicate itself, the scaffold structure, that permits the build of the indispensable protection wall, form and size of its building, walls with gates that permits cargo in and out, recognition mechanisms that let only the right cargo in, has specific sites and production lines, "employees", busy and instructed to produce all kind of necessary products, parts and subparts with the right form and size through the right materials, others which mount the parts together in the right order, on the right place, in the right sequence, at the right time, which has sophisticated check and error detection mechanisms all along the production process, the hability to compare correctly produced parts to faulty ones and discard the faulty ones, and repeat the process to make the correct ones; highways and cargo carriers that have tags which recognize where to drop the cargo where its needed, cleans up waste and has waste bins and sophisticated recycle mechanisms, storage departments, produces its energy and shuttles it to where its needed, and last not least, does reproduce itself. The salient thing is that the individual parts and compartments have no function by their own. They had to emerge ALL AT ONCE, No stepwise manner is possible, all systems are INTERDEPENDENT and IRREDUCIBLE. And it could not be through evolution, since evolution depends on fully working self replicating cells, in order to function. How can someone rationally argue that the origin of the most sophisticated factory in the universe would be probable to be based on natural occurence, without involving any guiding intelligence ? To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn MargulisA tornado over a junkyard is nothing like what probably started life. That is a ridiculous analogy and reveals your lack of scientific knowledge. Life probably started with a single cell or several of them and millions or billions of years with the right conditions.
Adonai888, What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?I would guess 99.9 % probability for life on earth, and similar type planets, he guiding force being "Chemistry" and the "Mathematical Function". Watch this clip by Robert Hazen a physicist specializing in Chemistry.
ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Start @ 25:00 !
Sad part is Adonai888 has already been offered quite a selection of information sources. Including some key concepts, such as the fact that atoms don't combine by "mindless random chance", there are attractions that demand certain combinations and make others impossible. To even use the term Random reveals a huge gap in fundamental understanding! To insist on it, reveals disingenuous intentions. It's like trying to uphold a mathematical discussion when you believe 2+2=5, even though the mathematicians have agreed that 2+2=4. Ignoring them, misrepresenting what experts tell us, making up bull shit, staying frozen in false concepts - that's the god-did-it response. A complete disengagement from the observation abilities and brains god gave us. Disgusting and counter-productive. Way back while still in high school I summarized my attitude toward the Lutheran Church I was still a part of, but has decided to leave at the time. It came down to: Do I want to listen to some old elder telling me what to believe, or do I want to go out and embrace life, experience it and learn from living it. I'll take real life and active learning to dogmatic drivel any day. Faith based thinking = dogma shackled Fact based thinking = constructive learning processAdonai888, What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?I would guess 99.9 % probability for life on earth, and similar type planets, he guiding force being "Chemistry" and the "Mathematical Function". Watch this clip by Robert Hazen a physicist specializing in Chemistry.ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Start @ 25:00 !
Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ? Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book, or produce the hardware and software of a computer ?Set up your strawman - that complex chemical reactions taking place over hundreds of millions of years in an environment with all the ingredients needed to produce life are equivalent to one of natures most chaotic and short terms events - then knock it down and claim that therefor abiogenesis is impossible. Would you say that minds are needed to produce complex natural phenomena we see all around us from stellar formation to plate tectonics. How could complex and ever evolving things take place without guiding influence? It's a null question in scientific terms, we know they do based on the laws that we see governing this universe. Going beyond that is the realm of faith which people are more than free to explore to their content. But they don't inform us of anything in a scientific context where evidence is required. Right now the best evidence is that complex series of chemical reactions with energy sources and the presence of organic compounds over a very long period of time - and many trillion combinations of those chemicals - eventually produced self replicating cells that began what we understand as evolution. Faith based science - which is basically what is being advocated here - produces no advancement in understanding as it by definition stops with, "an intelligent designer did it all". Which as I said is perfectly appropriated for faith based discussion and viewing of the world. But it is simply not compatible with an evidence based approach to understanding the natural world. Something that science continues to give us very powerful tools to do so. As we peel the layers away from how life originated on a very young Earth, quite possibly by looking at how life originates on other places, then we will have a much clearer and fuller understanding of abiogenesis. Saying it was something that took place separate from how our best understanding says the universe functions isn't going to take us anywhere in scientific terms. We already have a close next door neighbour which is a possible candidate for life, this issue is going to develop faster than many think. http://www.space.com/33915-newfound-planet-proxima-b-habitability.html
The old junk yard airplane argument is absurd as well as not relevant. Why people say evolution didn't take place yet fail to even mention the age of our universe dismays me. Given enough time, quantum mechanics tells us almost anything could happen given time. And there has already been a hell of a lot of time with even more to come.Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2025-time-makes-everything-becoming-possible-really This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature. What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process. The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does. http://bevets.com/evolutionevidence.htm A Parable: Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire." You say "Prove it." He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.) You say "What does that prove?" He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them" You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?" "Because it's GREEN" he says. "What else can you show me?" He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire." You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask. "I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?" "Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, The possible probable, And the probable virtually certain, One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles." (Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954) 1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.html
Life probably started with a single cell or several of them and millions or billions of years with the right conditions.And how do you think does this answer refute my inference of design ?
Sad part is Adonai888 has already been offered quite a selection of information sources. Including some key concepts, such as the fact that atoms don't combine by "mindless random chance", there are attractions that demand certain combinations and make others impossible. To even use the term Random reveals a huge gap in fundamental understanding! To insist on it, reveals disingenuous intentions. It's like trying to uphold a mathematical discussion when you believe 2+2=5, even though the mathematicians have agreed that 2+2=4. Ignoring them, misrepresenting what experts tell us, making up bull shit, staying frozen in false concepts - that's the god-did-it response. A complete disengagement from the observation abilities and brains god gave us. Disgusting and counter-productive. Way back while still in high school I summarized my attitude toward the Lutheran Church I was still a part of, but has decided to leave at the time. It came down to: Do I want to listen to some old elder telling me what to believe, or do I want to go out and embrace life, experience it and learn from living it. I'll take real life and active learning to dogmatic drivel any day. Faith based thinking = dogma shackled Fact based thinking = constructive learning process you have not refuted anything of my op. just baseless whining.Adonai888, What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?I would guess 99.9 % probability for life on earth, and similar type planets, he guiding force being "Chemistry" and the "Mathematical Function". Watch this clip by Robert Hazen a physicist specializing in Chemistry.ROBERT HAZEN - CHANCE, NECESSITY, AND THE ORIGINS OF LIFEhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlAQLgTwJ_A Start @ 25:00 !
Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a 747 ? Would you say that it is plausible that mindless random chance can write a book, or produce the hardware and software of a computer ?Set up your strawman - that complex chemical reactions taking place over hundreds of millions of years in an environment with all the ingredients needed to produce life are equivalent to one of natures most chaotic and short terms events - then knock it down and claim that therefor abiogenesis is impossible. Would you say that minds are needed to produce complex natural phenomena we see all around us from stellar formation to plate tectonics. How could complex and ever evolving things take place without guiding influence? It's a null question in scientific terms, we know they do based on the laws that we see governing this universe. Going beyond that is the realm of faith which people are more than free to explore to their content. But they don't inform us of anything in a scientific context where evidence is required. Right now the best evidence is that complex series of chemical reactions with energy sources and the presence of organic compounds over a very long period of time - and many trillion combinations of those chemicals - eventually produced self replicating cells that began what we understand as evolution. Faith based science - which is basically what is being advocated here - produces no advancement in understanding as it by definition stops with, "an intelligent designer did it all". Which as I said is perfectly appropriated for faith based discussion and viewing of the world. But it is simply not compatible with an evidence based approach to understanding the natural world. Something that science continues to give us very powerful tools to do so. As we peel the layers away from how life originated on a very young Earth, quite possibly by looking at how life originates on other places, then we will have a much clearer and fuller understanding of abiogenesis. Saying it was something that took place separate from how our best understanding says the universe functions isn't going to take us anywhere in scientific terms. We already have a close next door neighbour which is a possible candidate for life, this issue is going to develop faster than many think. http://www.space.com/33915-newfound-planet-proxima-b-habitability.html The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent design http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2364-the-irreducible-code-instructed-process-to-make-cell-factories-and-machines-points-to-intelligent-design To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn Margulis Evolution has been a central point of the origins debate. Abiogenesis however provides far better elucidation of what mechanisms explain the origin of biological systems better: A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter. Behes definition of Irreducible complexity can be expanded, and applied not only to biological systems, but also to systems , machines and factories created by man, that require a minimal number of parts to exercise a specific function, and this minimal number of parts cannot be reduced to keep the basic function. The term applies as well to processes, production methods and proceedings of various sorts. To reach a certain goal, a minimal number of manufacturing steps must be gone through. That applies in special to processes in living cells, where a minimal set of basic processes must be fully functional and operational, in order to maintain cells alive. Following irreducible processes and parts are required to keep cells alive, and illustrate mount improbable to get life a first go: Reproduction. Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things. Metabolism. Enzymatic activity allows a cell to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, both of which are essential to cell survival. Nutrition. This is closely related to metabolism. Seal up a living organism in a box for long enough and in due course it will cease to function and eventually die. Nutrients are essential for life. Complexity. All known forms of life are amazingly complex. Even single-celled organisms such as bacteria are veritable beehives of activity involving millions of components. Organization. Maybe it is not complexity per se that is significant, but organized complexity. Growth and development. Individual organisms grow and ecosystems tend to spread (if conditions are right). Information content. In recent years scientists have stressed the analogy between living organisms and computers. Crucially, the information needed to replicate an organism is passed on in the genes from parent to offspring. Hardware/software entanglement. All life of the sort found on Earth stems from a deal struck between two very different classes of molecules: nucleic acids and proteins. Permanence and change. A further paradox of life concerns the strange conjunction of permanence and change. Sensitivity. All organisms respond to stimuli— though not always to the same stimuli in the same ways. Regulation. All organisms have regulatory mechanisms that coordinate internal processes.
And all that was explained by Robert Hazen. If only you had taken the time to watch the presentation I linked. But alas, real knowledge is discarded in favor of a tale of Divine intervention just to make humans, who will then entertain the Creator with starvation, diseases and most popularly, war!
A perfect plot for a Star Trek movie.
But I am encouraged by the major concession of the following;
Pope Francis declares evolution and Big Bang theory are real and God is not ‘a magician with a magic wand’
Speaking at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the Pope made comments which experts said put an end to the “pseudo theories" of creationism and intelligent design that some argue were encouraged by his predecessor, Benedict XVI.
and
Pope John Paul II Declares Evolution to be Fact!
“‘Humani Generis’," he stated, “considered the doctrine of ‘evolutionism’ as a serious hypothesis, worthy of a more deeply studied investigation and reflection on a par with the opposite hypothesis. … Today, more than a half century after this encyclical, new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis. … The convergence, neither sought nor induced, of results of work done independently one from the other, constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
http://www.biblelight.net/darwin.htm
OK, now you have heard Science confirmed by a spiritual body (Catholic church). The admission of the evolutionary process completely negates the time table as set forth in the OT. Are you then the only one who rejects the science of an old universe, earth, and creation through Evolution?
The irreducible, code-instructed process to make cell factories and machines points to intelligent designprove it in scientific not faith based terms. We simply don't have enough information at this point to make a firm determination, if you choose to believe in an intelligent designer that is your right, it's not going to stop scientific advance. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2364-the-irreducible-code-instructed-process-to-make-cell-factories-and-machines-points-to-intelligent-design
To go from a bacterium to people is less of a step than to go from a mixture of amino acids to a bacterium. — Lynn MargulisThe facts argue otherwise. There is some evidence in isotopes in zircons formed 4.1 billion years ago that life may have started then. Complex multi-cellular life didn't appear until about 600 Mya. Man has only been around for several hundred thousand years. There's a huge difference between how long it took for life to appear and how long it took to evolve humans.
Evolution has been a central point of the origins debate. Abiogenesis however provides far better elucidation of what mechanisms explain the origin of biological systems better: A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter.Evolution is the best explanation for the wide variety of life we see on the Earth today, why they share molecular biology and how fossilized life fits into the theoretical context. We don't even know with much precision what conditions existed 3.7 or 4.1 billion years ago, abiogenesis is an idea to explain the origin of all life here. You are free to assume an intelligent designer if you wish, scientists will continue to explore the physical mechanisms that may have led to abiogenesis.
Behes definition of Irreducible complexity can be expanded, and applied not only to biological systems, but also to systems , machines and factories created by man, that require a minimal number of parts to exercise a specific function, and this minimal number of parts cannot be reduced to keep the basic function. The term applies as well to processes, production methods and proceedings of various sorts. To reach a certain goal, a minimal number of manufacturing steps must be gone through. That applies in special to processes in living cells, where a minimal set of basic processes must be fully functional and operational, in order to maintain cells alive.We don't even know with certainty what chemicals in what environment were present on the primordial Earth, claiming the needed ingredients to spontaneously produce life weren't in existence is making a faith based assumption, not an objective observation based on evidence. Evolution works by continually building on and adapting life with what is already present, this idea of specialized parts that can only fit one need ignores how evolution actually works. It doesn't start with a plan and build parts to specifications, it subjects molecules to a very wide variety of selection factors and allows only a very few through the process.
Following irreducible processes and parts are required to keep cells alive, and illustrate mount improbable to get life a first go: Reproduction. Reproduction is essential for the survival of all living things. Metabolism. Enzymatic activity allows a cell to respond to changing environmental demands and regulate its metabolic pathways, both of which are essential to cell survival. Nutrition. This is closely related to metabolism. Seal up a living organism in a box for long enough and in due course it will cease to function and eventually die. Nutrients are essential for life. Complexity. All known forms of life are amazingly complex. Even single-celled organisms such as bacteria are veritable beehives of activity involving millions of components. Organization. Maybe it is not complexity per se that is significant, but organized complexity. Growth and development. Individual organisms grow and ecosystems tend to spread (if conditions are right). Information content. In recent years scientists have stressed the analogy between living organisms and computers. Crucially, the information needed to replicate an organism is passed on in the genes from parent to offspring. Hardware/software entanglement. All life of the sort found on Earth stems from a deal struck between two very different classes of molecules: nucleic acids and proteins. Permanence and change. A further paradox of life concerns the strange conjunction of permanence and change. Sensitivity. All organisms respond to stimuli— though not always to the same stimuli in the same ways. Regulation. All organisms have regulatory mechanisms that coordinate internal processes.Once again, the idea of irreducible parts is based on your interpretation of life being designed, not how nature most likely works by constantly adapting existing elements in the context of natural laws that govern gravity, thermodynamics, quantum dynamics and more. These can and will act in very powerful and unpredictable ways over long periods of time. The quantum world itself is not subject to the kind of logic you're trying to apply to this subject. In the quantum world objects can be in two places at the same time and can "tunnel" through other objects if given enough time and interactions. This is due to quantum uncertainty, abiogenesis began at the quantum level with a constant interaction of molecules and atoms in a still loosely defined environment. Trying to understand abiogenesis by comparing molecules governed by quantum laws to factory parts at the macro level is meaningless. Any understanding of abiogenesis must include the quantum environment it certainly took place in. Life is here, of this we can be almost certain unless you like to get into a debate on what reality is at which point I'm out. It's up to each individual to approach how that life might have originated. There's nothing wrong with believing in an intelligent designer. It is completely incompatible to use faith based arguments to explain physical processes being studied under science. If you want to leave the origin of life where it is in your mind then do so. This doesn't stop the exploration of a physical examination of the natural origins of life which is a scientific question. It's not answered by resorting to an intelligent designer...unless there is convincing evidence of that. And as I've pointed out there are huge gaps in data of what conditions were like on the very young Earth.
The question I have over this is why is a faith based theory being allowed in the Science and Technology Forum. It’s well recognized both in law and within the scientific community itself that intelligent design is creationism under another name.
There’s never going to be any agreement on this on a scientific level because the two systems of thought are completely different. Creationism is based on received wisdom not open to revision and science is based on derived evidence constantly subjected to rigorous revision.
Taking a creationtist approach to a scientific exploration of the origin of life is like trying to discuss the Toronto Raptor’s chances of winning this years Stanley Cup…only much, much more so.
Any “discussion” here is going to end in complete disagreement because the conditions of discussion are completely incompatible.
Shouldn’t creationist based discussions on the origin of life be carried out in the proper forum, Religion and Secularism. That way people of other faiths can also share their creation myths.
Like;
Aztec Creation Myth]
Inuit Creation Myth]
Egyptian Creation Myths]
Hindu Creation Myth]
Buddhist Creation Myth]
Once again, the idea of irreducible parts is based on your interpretation of life being designed, not how nature most likely works by constantly adapting existing elements in the context of natural laws that govern gravity, thermodynamics, quantum dynamics and more. These can and will act in very powerful and unpredictable ways over long periods of time.How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2371-how-cellular-enzymatic-and-metabolic-networks-point-to-design The argument of a intelligent designer required to setup the Metabolic Networks for the origin of life Observation: The existence of metabolic pathways is crucial for molecular and cellular function. Although bacterial genomes differ vastly in their sizes and gene repertoires, no matter how small, they must contain all the information to allow the cell to perform many essential (housekeeping) functions that give the cell the ability to maintain metabolic homeostasis, reproduce, and evolve, the three main properties of living cells. Gil et al. (2004) In fact, metabolism is one of the most conserved cellular processes. By integrating data from comparative genomics and large-scale deletion studies, the paper "Structural analyses of a hypothetical minimal metabolism" proposes a minimal gene set comprising 206 protein-coding genes for a hypothetical minimal cell. The paper lists 50 enzymes/proteins required to create a metabolic network implemented by a hypothetical minimal genome for the hypothetical minimal cell. The 50 enzymes/proteins , and the metabolic network, must be fully implemented to permit a cell to keep its basic functions. Hypothesis (Prediction): The origin of biological irreducible metabolic pathways which also require regulation and and which are structured like a cascade, similar to electronic circuit boards, are best explained by the creative action of an intelligent agent. Experiment: Experimental investigations of metabolic networks indicate that they are full of nodes with enzymes/proteins, detectors, on/off switches, dimmer switches, relay switches, feedback loops etc. that require for their synthesis information rich, language-based codes stored in DNA . Hierarchical structures have been proved to be best suited for capturing most of the features of metabolic networks (Ravasz et al, 2002). It has been found that metabolites can only be synthesized if carbon, nitrogen, phosphor, and sulfur and the basic building blocks generated from them in central metabolism are available. This implies that regulatory networks gear metabolic activities to the availability of these basic resources. So one metabolic circuit depends on the product of other products, coming from other, central metabolic pathways, one depending from the other, like in a casacade. Further noteworthy is that Feedback loops have been found to be required to regulate metabolic flux, and the activities of many or all of the enzymes in a pathway. In many cases, metabolic pathways are highly branched, in which case it is often necessary to alter fluxes through part of the network while leaving them unaltered or decreasing them in other parts of the network (Curien et al., 2009). These are interconnected in a functional way, resulting in a living cell. The biological metabolic networks are exquisitely integrated, so the significant alterations in inevitably damage or destroys the funcion. Changes in flux often require changes in the activities of multiple enzymes in a metabolic sequence. Synthesis of one metabolite typically requires the operation of many pathways. Conclusion: Regardless of its initial complexity, self-maintaining chemical-based metabolic life could not have emerged in the absence of a genetic replicating mechanism insuring the maintenance, stability, and diversification of its components. In the absence of any hereditary mechanisms, autotrophic reaction chains would have come and gone without leaving any direct descendants able to resurrect the process. Life as we know it consists of both chemistry and information. If metabolic life ever did exist on the early Earth, to convert it to life as we know it would have required the emergence of some type of information system under conditions that are favorable for the survival and maintenance of genetic informational molecules. ( Ribas de Pouplana, Ph.D.) Intelligent agents have frequently end goals in mind, and use high levels of instructional complex information to met the goal. In our experience, systems storing large amounts of specified/instructional complex information through codes and languages -- invariably originate from an intelligent source. Likewise, circuits or networks of coordinated interaction as for example of analog electronic devices can always be traced back to a intelligent causal agent. The operation of analog electronic devices maps very closely to the flow of information in chemical reactions of metabolic pathways (McAdams and Shapiro, 1995). A proposed mechanism to make metabolical networks must be capable of construct de novo, not merely modifying, a minimal set of 50 enzymes, and complex integrated metabolic circuits with the end goal to create life. A metabolic network that is not fully operational, will not permit life. We know in our experience that intelligence is able to setup circuit boards, like discrete electronic boards, and is the only known cause of irreducibly complex machines. Since evolution depends on metabolic circuits fully setup, its excluded as possible mechanism. The only two alternatives, chance/luck or physical necessity have never been observed to be able to setup circuit boards and irreducible complex systems. The origin of the basic metabolical network of the first cells is therefore best explained through the action of a intelligent agency. 1. High information content (or specified complexity), irreducible complexity, and the setup of exquisitely integrated circuits, which by significant alterations are inevitably damaged or destroys the funcion, constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design. 2.The high information content and biological irreducible metabolic pathways which also require regulation and and structured in a cascade manner, similar to electronic circuit boards, utilizing proteins and enzymes that manifest by themself irreducible complexity, constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) creation through intelligent intervention, and design. 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (instructed complex information), irreducible complexity, and the setup of complex circuits with little tolerance of change. 4. Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in metabolic biological circuits.
Adonai888 said: Hypothesis (Prediction): The origin of biological irreducible metabolic pathways which also require regulation and and which are structured like a cascade, similar to electronic circuit boards, are best explained by the creative action of an intelligent agent.You actually answered your question already by admitting that the process is similar to assembling electronic circuit boards. IMO, all physical structures are forms of specific electro-magnetic circuit boards. But I disagree that some motivated intelligence put this all together on the first try. Humans are an intelligent agent and we still have not quite yet been able to do it in a few thousand laboratory experiments in a few hundred years. But give us some 4 billion years and we might just stumble on the right combination, now that we have computers to crunch enormous numbers. You don't think we can succeed in creating life in such a time span? We already have developed an artificial RNA information carrier, named XNA.
Xeno nucleic acid.Xeno nucleic acid (XNA) is a synthetic alternative to the natural nucleic acids DNA and RNA as information-storing biopolymers that differs in the sugar backbone. As of 2011, at least six types of synthetic sugars have been shown to form nucleic acid backbones that can store and retrieve genetic information. Research is now being done to create synthetic polymerases to transform XNA. Xeno nucleic acid - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_nucleic_acid. Are you forgetting that the earth had about 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions to produce the necessary bio-chemical molecules and test them against natural selections. In view of that staggering number of different chemical reactions the probability of assembly of some 500 bio-molecules in just the right order does not seem so daunting, given the combinatory richness of basic ingredients on earth. It is quite possible that life emerged at several suitable locations on earth and each distinct species evolved in different directions by different bio-chemical processes.
What is this “irreducible” shit.
How can you call things that have been reduced to more basic components “irreducible” ?
It’s right back to playing that garbage fraudster’s game of misrepresenting what your opponent is explaining saying -
so of course, you can always win your argument. [puking emoticon]
C’mon CC. Adonai has been around long enough that we know better than to expect intellectual honesty out of him. He’s stuck in an ideological wasteland where facts are irrelevant and faith trumps reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_nucleic_acid. Are you forgetting that the earth had about 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions to produce the necessary bio-chemical molecules and test them against natural selections. In view of that staggering number of different chemical reactions the probability of assembly of some 500 bio-molecules in just the right order does not seem so daunting, given the combinatory richness of basic ingredients on earth. It is quite possible that life emerged at several suitable locations on earth and each distinct species evolved in different directions by different bio-chemical processes. Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2025-time-makes-everything-becoming-possible-really This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature. What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process. The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does. http://bevets.com/evolutionevidence.htm A Parable: Suppose a man walks up to you and says "I'm a billionaire." You say "Prove it." He says "ok", and he points across the street at a bank. "My money is in that bank there." (The bank is closed.) You say "What does that prove?" He says "Everyone knows banks have money in them" You say "I know there is money in the bank, but why should I believe that it's YOUR money?" "Because it's GREEN" he says. "What else can you show me?" He reaches in his pocket and pulls out a penny. "See -- I'm a billionaire." You're still skeptical. 'What does that prove?', you ask. "I'M A BILLIONAIRE" he states loudly (obviously annoyed that you would question him). He reaches in another pocket and pulls out another penny, "Do you believe me now?" "Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, The possible probable, And the probable virtually certain, One only has to wait: Time itself performs the miracles." (Wald, G., Scientific American, 1954) 1) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/01/peer-reviewed_p055221.htmlAdonai888 said: Hypothesis (Prediction): The origin of biological irreducible metabolic pathways which also require regulation and and which are structured like a cascade, similar to electronic circuit boards, are best explained by the creative action of an intelligent agent.You actually answered your question already by admitting that the process is similar to assembling electronic circuit boards. IMO, all physical structures are forms of specific electro-magnetic circuit boards. But I disagree that some motivated intelligence put this all together on the first try. Humans are an intelligent agent and we still have not quite yet been able to do it in a few thousand laboratory experiments in a few hundred years. But give us some 4 billion years and we might just stumble on the right combination, now that we have computers to crunch enormous numbers. You don't think we can succeed in creating life in such a time span? We already have developed an artificial RNA information carrier, named XNA.Xeno nucleic acid.Xeno nucleic acid (XNA) is a synthetic alternative to the natural nucleic acids DNA and RNA as information-storing biopolymers that differs in the sugar backbone. As of 2011, at least six types of synthetic sugars have been shown to form nucleic acid backbones that can store and retrieve genetic information. Research is now being done to create synthetic polymerases to transform XNA. Xeno nucleic acid - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_nucleic_acid. Are you forgetting that the earth had about 2 trillion, quadrillion, quadrillion, quadrillion chemical interactions to produce the necessary bio-chemical molecules and test them against natural selections. In view of that staggering number of different chemical reactions the probability of assembly of some 500 bio-molecules in just the right order does not seem so daunting, given the combinatory richness of basic ingredients on earth. It is quite possible that life emerged at several suitable locations on earth and each distinct species evolved in different directions by different bio-chemical processes.Adonai888 said: Hypothesis (Prediction): The origin of biological irreducible metabolic pathways which also require regulation and and which are structured like a cascade, similar to electronic circuit boards, are best explained by the creative action of an intelligent agent.You actually answered your question already by admitting that the process is similar to assembling electronic circuit boards. IMO, all physical structures are forms of specific electro-magnetic circuit boards. But I disagree that some motivated intelligence put this all together on the first try. Humans are an intelligent agent and we still have not quite yet been able to do it in a few thousand laboratory experiments in a few hundred years. But give us some 4 billion years and we might just stumble on the right combination, now that we have computers to crunch enormous numbers. You don't think we can succeed in creating life in such a time span? We already have developed an artificial RNA information carrier, named XNA.Xeno nucleic acid.Xeno nucleic acid (XNA) is a synthetic alternative to the natural nucleic acids DNA and RNA as information-storing biopolymers that differs in the sugar backbone. As of 2011, at least six types of synthetic sugars have been shown to form nucleic acid backbones that can store and retrieve genetic information. Research is now being done to create synthetic polymerases to transform XNA. Xeno nucleic acid - Wikipedia
Time makes everything becoming possible. Really ? http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2025-time-makes-everything-becoming-possible-really This is a frequently raised, but unsophisticated argument for Darwinian evolution and the origin of life. You can't just vaguely appeal to vast and unending amounts of time (and other probabilistic resources) and assume that Darwinian evolution or whatever mechanisms you propose for the origin of life, can produce anything "no matter how complex." Rather, you have to demonstrate that sufficient probabilistic resources or evolutionary mechanisms indeed exist to produce the feature.
What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process.Because it is a provable fact. Just look at the domesticated anmals we keep. Don't tell the AKC this little story. They'll let the Rothweilers lose on you, so they can do what they were bred to do. Evolution over time is in fact the easiest phenomenon to prove. And this the subject you wish to attack? A young Earth, no less.
The so called evolutionary argument is more a matter of assaulting the intelligence of those who oppose it with a range assertions that proponents of evolution really have no answer, how these mechanisms really work. To argue that forever is long enough for the complexity of life to reveal itself is an untenable argument. The numbers are off any scale we can relate to as possible to explain what we see of life. Notwithstanding, you have beings in here who go as far to say it's all accounted for already, as if they know something nobody else does.Are you including two Popes? I don't. I try to look at things from several different perspectives and I can empathize with the spiritually minded community ( I am a David Bohm fan) but on reflection, to introduce the concept that the answer lies in a *Word*, for which no definition exists other than as Creator or The Alpha and The Omega, end of story, is just not good enough for me. A minor fact that is overlooked, that the words alpha and omega are mathematical terms and refer to a mathematical condition or function.. :-) I see it as a metaphysical but mathematical imperative (high probability) which seems to create the values and equations necessary for a dynamical creative unfolding of the universe.. Check out Loll's Causal Dynamical triangulation.