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

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
yep. may have. As always, guesswork. i might add : may have not !! this is pseudo science at its best. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2243-no-evidence-that-rna-molecules-ever-had-the-broad-range-of-catalytic-activities A cell has a great investment in its RNAs – they are working copies of its genomic information. The study of mRNA biogenesis in the last few years has revealed an elaborate surveillance mechanism involving factors such as the UPF proteins that culls aberrantly spliced mRNAs and mRNAs with premature termination codons. There might be a hint that such RNA quality control mechanisms go awry in cancers, just as DNA quality control mechanisms do, where aberrantly spliced transcripts accumulate in a tumor. Now that the gates are open, we may have a flood of studies on the RNome [the RNA genome] stability and cancer. 1 This aggravates the chicken-and-egg problem for proponents of natural mechanisms. In the “RNA World" hypothesis for the origin of life, RNA performed both the information storage and enzymatic functions before these roles were outsourced to DNA and proteins. But how could RNA repair itself? If RNA needs to be protected from damage, the protein repair system would have needed to be there from the beginning. Proponents of natural mechanisms might surmise that different primitive RNAs worked side by side to repair each other, but that strains credibility for a hypothesis already far-fetched. In typical evolutionary lingo, Begley and Samson blow smoke about what nature produced (emphasis added): “It seems that, for each human protein, parameters have evolved to distinguish between RNA and DNA," they speculate, and in another place, “It might be that the RNA-demethylation activity of AlkB-like proteins evolved to regulate biological RNA methylation, and that the repair of aberrant, chemical methylation is fortuitous." Ask them how the cell evolved these things, and you’ll probably get a quizzical look, as if “Why are you asking such a dumb question? I don’t know. It just had to. We’re here, aren’t we?"
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.
Actually you do. If you are claiming that something complex created human beings, you need to define what that complex thing is, or at least what its properties are or even might be. Otherwise, you could insert anything as that something. Which is exactly what you are doing. I agree, God is a philosophical concept. Science has limits. We don't know everything. You are basing conclusions and wildly speculating given those facts. I'm saying, "I don't know, but I know how to keep asking the questions."
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.
Actually you do. If you are claiming that something complex created human beings, you need to define what that complex thing is, or at least what its properties are or even might be. Otherwise, you could insert anything as that something. Which is exactly what you are doing. I agree, God is a philosophical concept. Science has limits. We don't know everything. You are basing conclusions and wildly speculating given those facts. I'm saying, "I don't know, but I know how to keep asking the questions." Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity creating biological systems and life. Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design. If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how? When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence. Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design. In order to make design prediction, it must be established what can be recognized as design in nature - Something having the PROPERTIES that we might attribute to that of a intelligently designed system: ( Follwing requirements which consist in a unsurmountable problem for unguided naturalistic processes are met ) : 1) IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. The requirement and existence of individual parts of a biological system which are indispensable to keep the basic function of a system, which have no survival advantage or functional purpose by their own, nor in a intermediate evolutionary stage. ( biologically useful or significant genetic sequences ) 2) The hability to find and recruit and select the right materials, and to form molecules with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into tissues, organs, and organ systems in a highly complex, functional, specified, correct, spacial order. Making the individual parts and materials available at the same construction site, perhaps not simultaneously but certainly at the time they are needed. Coordinating and instruct the assembly of the parts in just the right way: even if all of the parts of a system are available at the right time, it is clear that the majority of ways of assembling them will be non-functional or irrelevant. The parts must have the right size, form and material, and must be mutually compatible, that is, ‘well-matched’ and capable of properly ‘interacting’: even if sub systems or parts are put together in the right order, they also need to interface correctly. The individual parts will be held together and connected in the right manner through various different mechanisms, like fine tuned covalent and non-covalent bonds, electrostatic forces, cell junctions etc. 3) Establishment of communication systems. 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. Acts as an informational processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware can only be setup all at once through intelligent input ) 4) Selecting the most optimal and efficient genetic code and hability of minimizing the effects of errors. 5) A system which uses a cipher, translating instructions through one language ( the universal genetic code) which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics and Apobetics, and assign the right triplet code to the right amino acids 6) Appearance of highly complex dependencies thus giving the appearence of Implicit intelligence (although not intelligent itself, indicates an origin involving intelligence.. ) 7 Use of molecular machinery on a scale and complexity which mankind has never IMAGINED possible - all with appearence of exact purpose, intent, function and dependencies 8 exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory genes controlling gene expression - conceptually the same as a logical software layer controlling the underlying system. 9) another layer of complex 3 Dimensional control and access, and adaptation to environment: Epigentics 10) Implicit built in ERROR checking from the get go: reducing mutations to a minimal 11) Advanced inbuilt repair mechanisms which are essential for the proper function of certain biological systems and proteins right from the start. 12) Precise optimisation and fine-tuning of biological, chemical, biochemical and physical systems. 13) Display the DESIGN of complex software, designed to adapt and EVOLVE in a very controlled and careful way - while at the same time minimizing mutations. A system designed to EVOLVE and SURVIVE. (gene splicing ) 14) The hability of provide the precise instruction and coding for development of biological systems. 15) Something which as well as exhibiting all of the above, also has no conceptual way of coming into existence through naturalistic means, : or something whose existence and origins appears to defy all known scientific understanding. Something which requires the application of alot of FAITH and IMAGINATION of some theories to describe its origins through natural means alone. 16) So the application of COMMON SENSE and inference, from observations from the world around us (information processing systems) might indicate to us certain things having these above PROPERTIES, would fall into the category of things that have been DESIGNED. 17) One of the most intelligent concepts in the known universe is the concept of Evolution itself.
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.
Actually you do. If you are claiming that something complex created human beings, you need to define what that complex thing is, or at least what its properties are or even might be. Otherwise, you could insert anything as that something. Which is exactly what you are doing. I agree, God is a philosophical concept. Science has limits. We don't know everything. You are basing conclusions and wildly speculating given those facts. I'm saying, "I don't know, but I know how to keep asking the questions." Objection: We have never observed a being of any capacity creating biological systems and life. Answer: We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design. If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how? When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence. Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design. At this point the detective still does not know who committed the crime.
At this point the detective still does not know who committed the crime.
its enough that he detected that SOMEONE did it. In our case, ID theory does not go further than detect that design is the best inference.
At this point the detective still does not know who committed the crime.
its enough that he detected that SOMEONE did it. In our case, ID theory does not go further than detect that design is the best inference. Thank you for admitting you do not know who the designer was. That makes irrelevant the claims the Christian god was the designer.
At this point the detective still does not know who committed the crime.
its enough that he detected that SOMEONE did it. In our case, ID theory does not go further than detect that design is the best inference. Thank you for admitting you do not know who the designer was. That makes irrelevant the claims the Christian god was the designer.And THAT was my point. These ID clowns think that IF they can prove there's a designer, they've actually accomplished something in their favor. They haven't. And you can make them admit it by asking further, ok are you willing to admit that the designer you've just "proven" should not be prayed to, should not be the object of faith, etc. They'll no doubt say oh oh wait a minute, yes you have to pray to the designer, have faith, go to church, etc. At which point we've proven THEIR ulterior motive.
its enough that he detected that SOMEONE did it. In our case, ID theory does not go further than detect that design is the best inference.
Pointing out there are gaps in our knowledge of how life originated on Earth isn't detection of an original designer. It's an indication there are gaps in our knowledge of how life originated on Earth, nothing more. You fill in that gap with an Intelligent Designer - which has been established legally in the US to mean God - and others fill in that gap with constant examination of the physical world giving us a progressively clearer view of what most likely happened. It's up to each on their own to decide which is right for them.
At this point the detective still does not know who committed the crime.
its enough that he detected that SOMEONE did it. In our case, ID theory does not go further than detect that design is the best inference. Thank you for admitting you do not know who the designer was. That makes irrelevant the claims the Christian god was the designer. the inference of design is already a highly important conclusion in order to to form a world view that is based on truth. There are other, non scientific arguments to identify the designer.
At this point the detective still does not know who committed the crime.
its enough that he detected that SOMEONE did it. In our case, ID theory does not go further than detect that design is the best inference. Thank you for admitting you do not know who the designer was. That makes irrelevant the claims the Christian god was the designer. A detective investigating murders lives in a world populated with murderers who have properties and are to some degree predictable. You refused to name one property of your god. OTOH, I can name lots of properties of an unthinking universe that makes it capable of creating life. You know these properties because you talk about them all the time, rNA, DNA, spontaneous changes to living things. I make the "best inference" by choosing the thing with properties that I can detect and test and experiment with, versus the thing that, by definition, can't be seen or detected at all.
I make the "best inference" by choosing the thing with properties that I can detect and test and experiment with, versus the thing that, by definition, can't be seen or detected at all.
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.
I make the "best inference" by choosing the thing with properties that I can detect and test and experiment with, versus the thing that, by definition, can't be seen or detected at all.
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. 1. No they don't 2. High content, yes, irreducible, no 3. Yes they do 4. Therefore, you're wrong. Wrong in so many ways. So wrong you are not even on the map of reality. You don't register as having done anything but repeat words. Completely incoherent wrong, wrong, wrongity, wrong, wrongness with a capital W, Wrong.
3. Yes they do .
Wow. Great news. Any example at hand ? with empirical evidence to back up your claim ?
Adonai888 said 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
Lausten said, 3. Yes they do.
Wow. Great news. Any example at hand ? with empirical evidence to back up your claim ?
You need to read the question closer. Examples: a) *Rainbows* are undirected (spontaneous) complex objects. But of course they are reducible, as is everything else. b) *Flagella* are reducible complex objects, Behe is wrong. It was proven to be composed of parts which filled different functions before evolution increased their complexity and mutated a FUNCTIONAL simpler object into a flagellum..
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 ? It doesn't. Your failure to provide any evidence of design is what refutes your inference. That is all ot takes to dismiss your claim.
Adonai888 said 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
Lausten said, 3. Yes they do.
Wow. Great news. Any example at hand ? with empirical evidence to back up your claim ?
You need to read the question closer. Examples: a) *Rainbows* are undirected (spontaneous) complex objects. But of course they are reducible, as is everything else. b) *Flagella* are reducible complex objects, Behe is wrong. It was proven to be composed of parts which filled different functions before evolution increased their complexity and mutated a FUNCTIONAL simpler object into a flagellum..
amazing. people resort again and again to the flagellum. http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1528-the-flagellum?highlight=flagellum How can "some mutation" alone turn a secretory system into a flagellum? Think about this, the T3SS has over 25 proteins, the flagellum has over 60 proteins, and both share only 9 to 13 proteins.. So, instead of a single "crooked" mutation, the transition from one machine to another would require the novel evolution of over 50 proteins along with huge structural rearrangements (that would certainly disrupt the function of the system).. Clearly, evolution seems plausible, UNTIL we try testing against actual, more detailed facts taken from molecular biology Millers refutation of irreducible complexity of the Flagellum through co-option is a prima facie example of a pseudo scientific argument. Since Miller recognizes implicitly that a gradual evolutionary step by step development of the flagellum is not possible, he comes up with a ad hoc explanation, namely co-opting parts from other biological systems. That copying, modifying, and combining together preexisting parts , already operating in other systems, would do the job. But, is it really ? Could it be, that super evolutionary mechanisms would act that way, borrowing parts from other biological systems and assemble them to a flagellum with a new function , perfectly ordered, with perfect fits, and new functions,with the help of saint time , that would do that miracle ? Even thinking, that time in this case would rather be detrimental, than help ? Would it really be, that the most perfect and efficient motor in the universe could arise by copy/pasta , by a supernatural pick and add , a molecular quilt and patchwork mechanism? The question that follows is what exactly did the recruiting? What provokes recruitment to another system? and you believe in Santa Claus, as well ? Thats not only insane, but completely impossible.
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 ? It doesn't. Your failure to provide any evidence of design is what refutes your inference. That is all ot takes to dismiss your claim. maybe the evidence is right in front of your nose, but you are unable to recognize what it means.
Adonai888 said 3. Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
Lausten said, 3. Yes they do.
Wow. Great news. Any example at hand ? with empirical evidence to back up your claim ?
You need to read the question closer. Examples: a) *Rainbows* are undirected (spontaneous) complex objects. But of course they are reducible, as is everything else. b) *Flagella* are reducible complex objects, Behe is wrong. It was proven to be composed of parts which filled different functions before evolution increased their complexity and mutated a FUNCTIONAL simpler object into a flagellum..
amazing. people resort again and again to the flagellum. Because that's one of the favorite examples of creationists. Have you read or watched the Ohio court case? That pretty well covered it.
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 ? It doesn't. Your failure to provide any evidence of design is what refutes your inference. That is all ot takes to dismiss your claim. maybe the evidence is right in front of your nose, but you are unable to recognize what it means. The evidence for evolution not under your nose. It requires reading, study, and it took generations of people to work it out. It's hard. Some things are hard. You want easy.
Because that's one of the favorite examples of creationists. Have you read or watched the Ohio court case? That pretty well covered it.
there are many other examples. A list of irreducible complex systems http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2166-a-list-of-irreducible-complex-systems Catch22, chicken and egg problems in biology and biochemistry http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2059-catch22-chicken-and-egg-problems In Joseph Heller’s classic novel about World War II,Catch-22, an aviator could be excused from combat duty for being crazy. But a rule specified that he first had to request an excuse, and anyone who requested an excuse from combat duty was obviously not crazy, so such requests were invariably denied. The rule that made it impossible to be excused from combat duty was called “Catch-22."