What is the probability of the first cells to emerge without involving a guiding intelligent force ?

How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2371-how-cellular-enzymatic-and-metabolic-networks-point-to-design snip...
I'm not debating evolution with a creationist, there's no point. No matter what evidence is presented it will inevitably end in a complete disagreement because of the factors I stated above. I don't think creationist discussion belongs in a Science and Technology Forum for that very reason. It's religious based not scientific.

Come to think of it, it looks as if a tornado over a junk yard produced Adonai, so apparently such a phenomenon is possible, after all. I can’t imagine a designer being involved unless it was a truly malevolent one.

Adonai888 said: Adonai888 - 27 November 2016 04:44 AM How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design.
They point to mathematically recurring patterns. Get rid of this designer universe, this is not a fashion show we're talking about.
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 ? No,...only that which is possible will "eventually" become expressed
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.
That is a blatantly false argument. Evolution of anything does not start with complex designs, but is a process that gradually improves the ability to survive the environment by natural selection over time. Complex organisms or objects are made from very simple parts, which in turn can be reduced to simple chemical interactions of fundamental elements, which in turn are made from smaller particles each with specific values. It is religion (not science) that claims the instant creation of complex organisms This is what you fail to see!!
What is education" when it produces individuals who swear that evolution is true or that those who oppose it don't understand the process.
a) good education. b) bad education.
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.
Who said that? Remember, you sre making that claim. I have read many posts and nowhere did I see any sane person making that claim, not even in Determinism.
Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/
Adonai888 said: Adonai888 - 27 November 2016 04:44 AM How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design.
They point to mathematically recurring patterns. Get rid of this designer universe, this is not a fashion show we're talking about.
please explain what function DNA has and its information content without the hardware to extract the information, transcribe it into mRNA, and translate it into amino acid chains, which bear functional proteins.
Adonai888 said: Adonai888 - 27 November 2016 04:44 AM How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design.
They point to mathematically recurring patterns. Get rid of this designer universe, this is not a fashion show we're talking about.
please explain what function DNA has and its information content without the hardware to extract the information, transcribe it into mRNA, and translate it into amino acid chains, which bear functional proteins. Wouldn't that answer be best asked of a biologist? Do you know how to use Google?
Adonai888 said: Adonai888 - 27 November 2016 04:44 AM How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design.
They point to mathematically recurring patterns. Get rid of this designer universe, this is not a fashion show we're talking about.
please explain what function DNA has and its information content without the hardware to extract the information, transcribe it into mRNA, and translate it into amino acid chains, which bear functional proteins. Wouldn't that question be best asked of a biologist? Do you know how to use Google?
Adonai888 said: Adonai888 - 27 November 2016 04:44 AM How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design.
They point to mathematically recurring patterns. Get rid of this designer universe, this is not a fashion show we're talking about.
please explain what function DNA has and its information content without the hardware to extract the information, transcribe it into mRNA, and translate it into amino acid chains, which bear functional proteins. Wouldn't that answer be best asked of a biologist? Do you know how to use Google? He's here to "prove" that abiogenesis is impossible and therefore evolution is really intelligent design, not answer any questions he may have. It's what the intelligent design movement is based on. They had to take these people to court to get them to back off taking over the public education system with creationism replacing evolution. So I seriously doubt they're interested in how things actually work in the natural world.
Adonai888 said: Adonai888 - 27 November 2016 04:44 AM How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design.
They point to mathematically recurring patterns. Get rid of this designer universe, this is not a fashion show we're talking about.
please explain what function DNA has and its information content without the hardware to extract the information, transcribe it into mRNA, and translate it into amino acid chains, which bear functional proteins. Wouldn't that question be best asked of a biologist? Do you know how to use Google? Is the DNA of every person exactly the same? If DNA is irreducibly complex, why is there no exact duplication every time. Irreducible complexity means it is irreducible and would copy exactly the same always.. Why is this not so? Is DNA *changeable*? If it is, then is it possible that some changes are beneficial and some detrimental? If that is true, then you are admitting to evolution.

Same old song and dance. Ok adonaii I’ll grant you there is a designer. Prove to us that it isn’t just some super advanced alien and that it’s in fact “god”. Step 1 - define god such that everyone who uses the term agrees that your definition is the correct one. Ok…GO. (And don’t come back until you’ve accomplished this). If you can’t do this, then your thread is just a bunch of word games.

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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District#Decision 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]
You're right Doug, the discussion doesn't beling here, but there is no way to keep people from forcing posts into inappropriate catrgories. I suppose they think it gives their ulterior motives an advantage.
Adonai888 said: Adonai888 - 27 November 2016 04:44 AM How Cellular Enzymatic and Metabolic networks point to design.
They point to mathematically recurring patterns. Get rid of this designer universe, this is not a fashion show we're talking about.
please explain what function DNA has and its information content without the hardware to extract the information, transcribe it into mRNA, and translate it into amino acid chains, which bear functional proteins. Wouldn't that answer be best asked of a biologist? Do you know how to use Google? He's here to "prove" that abiogenesis is impossible and therefore evolution is really intelligent design, not answer any questions he may have. It's what the intelligent design movement is based on. They had to take these people to court to get them to back off taking over the public education system with creationism replacing evolution. So I seriously doubt they're interested in how things actually work in the natural world. They aren't. They're interested only in pretending that religious myths are science.

Precellular life must have been some crazy goo. Just think of the level of variation that could take place in the mashup. One little process lives off of another little process so surely adjajcent processes would have been very relevant. Likely some organization did evolve in this precellular community. Some real juicy tidbit like an oil producer would probably get surrounded by oil eaters. Could that be a first cell? Any construction which has a key innerd that is surrounded by affiliates will suffice as a cell. Even a membrane can wait to be born. Membranes are semipermeable anyways. Membranes are a key feature in terms of establishing boundaries, but his is also true above the cellular level.

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?"
The trouble with your "parables" is that they don't make a lot of sense. What's the point in this one? To us, this sounds exactly like what YOU are claiming. You say there must be this invisible designer someplace, which created the incredibly complex living universe, and yet paradoxically this designer itself is not complex, but irreducibly simple. And the only "evidence" you show us is the fact that you don't understand how evolution could have happened otherwise. I mean, forget about taking a penny out of your pocket. All you're showing us is pocket lint, and asking us to imagine that money must exist somewhere. : - )
And the only "evidence" you show us is the fact that you don't understand how evolution could have happened otherwise. I mean, forget about taking a penny out of your pocket. All you're showing us is pocket lint, and asking us to imagine that money must exist somewhere. : - )
don't worry. I have a littlebit more...... 125 Arguments for God's Existence http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1276-125-arguments-for-god-s-existence http://god-proofs.blogspot.com.br/2014/05/theological-and-scientific-proofs.html The fact that the physical universe had a beginning, means it had a cause. The fact that the universe is finely tuned to the extreme, points to the requirement of a fine-tuner. A book requires a author. Nobody in its sane mind would speculate that a book could be written by chance. The information in a book requires the physical medium ( paper, ink ) The information requires the storage medium. One requires the other to bear function. Life requires the setup of a genetic code, and coded Information which is complex and instructional / specified found in epigenetic systems and genes. And it requires the physical storage medium( DNA ), the machinery to extract the information ( RNA polymerase ), and translate it ( ribosomes ) to produce functional proteins. Neither , the software, nor the hardware, would have function, one without the other. Nor is there utility of the ribosome and rna polymerase without DNA and mRNA. That is strong indiciation that both had to emerge together. And that requires intelligence. What came first, the TATA Box in the promoter region in DNA, or transcription factors, controlling the rate of transcription of genetic information from DNA to messenger RNA ? What use does one have without the other ? Both must have come into existence in the right exact time. Most signal-relay stations we know about were intelligently designed. Signal without recognition is meaningless. Communication implies a signalling convention (a “coming together" or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!" The transmitter and receiver can be made of non-sentient materials, but the functional purpose of the system always comes from a mind. The mind uses the material substances to perform an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them. Signal sequences may be composed of mindless matter, but they are marks of a mind behind the intelligent design. Energy is required to make power plants and factories, that produce energy. What emerged first, energy, or the enzymes that make energy ? Irreducible , interdependent molecular machines and biosynthetic and metabolic pathways in biological systems, and the specific energy supply where its needed, and communication networks and information processing machines in cells point to a intelligent agent as best explanation of their setup and origins. Proponents of naturalism on the contrary hope to one day learn how nothing magically can turn into something, or how we can reach now from eternity, how randomness can finetune hundreds of physical parameters to make life possible, how life can emerge from non-life randomly, and produce millions of species with the ability to evolve , and conscient intelligent minds can emerge from matter
Precellular life must have been some crazy goo. Just think of the level of variation that could take place in the mashup. One little process lives off of another little process so surely adjajcent processes would have been very relevant. Likely some organization did evolve in this precellular community. Some real juicy tidbit like an oil producer would probably get surrounded by oil eaters. Could that be a first cell? Any construction which has a key innerd that is surrounded by affiliates will suffice as a cell. Even a membrane can wait to be born. Membranes are semipermeable anyways. Membranes are a key feature in terms of establishing boundaries, but his is also true above the cellular level.
what is that ? precellular life ? any example at hand ?
Same old song and dance. Ok adonaii I'll grant you there is a designer. Prove to us that it isn't just some super advanced alien and that it's in fact "god". Step 1 - define god such that everyone who uses the term agrees that your definition is the correct one. Ok...GO. (And don't come back until you've accomplished this). If you can't do this, then your thread is just a bunch of word games.
If it were aliens, we would have to ask, where they came from.....
Same old song and dance. Ok adonaii I'll grant you there is a designer. Prove to us that it isn't just some super advanced alien and that it's in fact "god". Step 1 - define god such that everyone who uses the term agrees that your definition is the correct one. Ok...GO. (And don't come back until you've accomplished this). If you can't do this, then your thread is just a bunch of word games.
If it were aliens, we would have to ask, where they came from..... Which is exactly what we were asking you to prove. You just showed how your own argument for God is invalid. You didn't understand the question. Define your god, your definition of god. If it's the one that created the aliens that then created us, we don't care, we just want you to define it. "The ground of all being" or "the uncaused cause" are not definitions, they are place holder terms. I can replace them with "quantum field" and everything that you say about the Christian God is null and void.
what is that ? precellular life ? any example at hand ?
If you spent as much time looking for information as you do rationalizing denying it - you might learn a few things about the origins of life.
http://phys.org/news/2011-07-rna-reactor-precursor-life.html ... To address this question, Obermayer, et al., have turned to RNA replicators. As described in previous research, RNA replicators can transmit information from one molecule to another so that the information survives even when the original carrier molecules have become degraded. Here, the researchers have investigated how RNA replicators may have arisen from simpler RNA reactors billions of years ago. “We show that a combination of simple physico-chemical mechanisms can greatly facilitate the spontaneous emergence of a prebiotic evolutionary system, such as envisaged by the RNA world," Gerland told PhysOrg.com. Using computer simulations, the scientists analyzed a scenario in which a hydrothermal RNA reactor emerges with the ability to perform intermolecular information transmission. The scene begins inside porous rocks on the sea floor, where strong temperature gradients produce thermal convection, and the convective flow transports molecules inside the narrow pores. Due to temperature variations, nucleotides in the pores accumulate in a small region and randomly form bonds with one another. Through folding and hybridization, the polynucleotides can form longer sequences, eventually resulting in RNA strands. One of the key factors that allows the formation of RNA strands is the preferential cleavage (splitting) of bonds at unpaired bases. This effect creates a selection pressure for base pairing, and leads to an increase in the complexity and lifetime of RNA structures. ...
Primal Eukaryogenesis: On the Communal Nature of Precellular States, Ancestral to Modern Life Richard Egel Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen Biocenter, Ole Maaløes Vej 5, DK-2200 Copenhagen, Denmark Received: 8 November 2011 / Revised: 29 December 2011 / Accepted: 11 January 2012 / Published: 23 January 2012 http://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/2/1/170 Abstract This problem-oriented, exploratory and hypothesis-driven discourse toward the unknown combines several basic tenets: (i) a photo-active metal sulfide scenario of primal biogenesis in the porespace of shallow sedimentary flats, in contrast to hot deep-sea hydrothermal vent conditions; (ii) an inherently complex communal system at the common root of present life forms; (iii) a high degree of internal compartmentalization at this communal root, progressively resembling coenocytic (syncytial) super-cells; (iv) a direct connection from such communal super-cells to proto-eukaryotic macro-cell organization; and (v) multiple rounds of micro-cellular escape with streamlined reductive evolution—leading to the major prokaryotic cell lines, as well as to megaviruses and other viral lineages. Hopefully, such nontraditional concepts and approaches will contribute to coherent and plausible views about the origins and early life on Earth. In particular, the coevolutionary emergence from a communal system at the common root can most naturally explain the vast discrepancy in subcellular organization between modern eukaryotes on the one hand and both archaea and bacteria on the other. View Full-Text
Same old song and dance. Ok adonaii I'll grant you there is a designer. Prove to us that it isn't just some super advanced alien and that it's in fact "god". Step 1 - define god such that everyone who uses the term agrees that your definition is the correct one. Ok...GO. (And don't come back until you've accomplished this). If you can't do this, then your thread is just a bunch of word games.
If it were aliens, we would have to ask, where they came from..... Which is exactly what we were asking you to prove. You just showed how your own argument for God is invalid. You didn't understand the question. Define your god, your definition of god. If it's the one that created the aliens that then created us, we don't care, we just want you to define it. "The ground of all being" or "the uncaused cause" are not definitions, they are place holder terms. I can replace them with "quantum field" and everything that you say about the Christian God is null and void. I have no proofs. And the identity of the designer is a philosophical / theological question, not scientific one. And we do not need to identify the designer in order to infer design as the best explanation for the origin of biological systems.