farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 04:53 am
@Webb,
Quote:
He believes the propaganda that MSNBC tells him.
And Ill bet that you think that FOX is factual reporting free from right-wing propaganda.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 04:55 am
@livinglava,
is the assembly of rust or CO2 or Ammoniated organic compounds subject to design? Was it ever?
If you believe in design by intelligence , all I wish to understand is "HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS"?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 05:28 am
@farmerman,
@Farmer,

, sorry I couldn’t remember the exact thread name but here is the relevant part of our conversation. It was in 'Why do people deny Evolution'.

Quote:
Quote:
Farmer replied:
yeh, all it takes are astronomical numbers of incidents ovr astronomical timelines (like deeep time , or anything over a BILLION years or so), and its almost a given .


Just for the record, here's why I don’t believe [life arising from mud] 'is almost a given'.

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is and how it is made. Search 'life of the cell' on YouTube for visual references to proteins. Without at least some grasp of proteins, a simple explanation is impossible. A protein in biology has little to do with the dietary term 'protein' so don’t think 'the stuff in meat'.

There are thousands of different types of proteins for doing different jobs in a cell. Anything that happens or gets done inside a cell is done either directly or indirectly by a protein. It is the most basic functional unit in a cell.

A protein is a molecular machine. I use the term 'machine' because of its interrelated combination of chemical, electrical and mechanical characteristics and the fact that it is very specific and functional.

A protein is made of amino acids. Amino acids are called the 'building blocks of life' for this reason. Making these 'building blocks' in the lab is as close to creating life as we have come, even though they can also form naturally. This is why one theory of life emerging is called 'protein world' since it seems logical that the 'simpler' protein came before the far more complex cell.

There are hundreds of different amino acids and each one comes in right and left handed versions (mirror images). Proteins only contain 20 of those and all are left handed. This creates a problem for naturally occurring proteins because if you mix in any of the other amino acids, or even a single right handed one of the 20, the protein is broken and will not function. And there is no mechanism in nature to prevent such contamination. But we are not yet to the real reason why biological life had to be designed.

A protein is a very specific chain of ordered amino acids between about 150 and 3500 long, depending on the protein. They do not function in this string form. In order to be functional, they must be 'folded' into a complex physical three dimensional shape, which is another barrier to 'natural' life forming. But we are still not at the crux of the problem.

Let’s say that in spite of the odds, the right order of only the correct amino acids does link up by chance. Let us further say that they accidentally fold into the correct functional configuration. If you are into math, the chances of that happening have been calculated at 1 in 10^77. For perspective, there are about 10^50 atoms in the entire planet of earth. But still, we are not at the bottom of the problem.

Remember that we are only talking about a protein so far. it takes hundreds to thousands of different proteins working in a coordinated fashion to make a single cell function. But for now let's ignore the mathematical improbability of that first protein and the hundreds of others needed.

You have probably noticed that I have not mentioned DNA yet. It is the nature of what DNA is that makes accidental life virtually impossible. Bill Gates compared DNA to a computer operating system, only DNA is far more complicated. It is the most complicated thing we know of and we have only begun to understand just how complex it is.

But it is NOT the complexity itself that explains why it had to be designed. It is the multiple hierarchical levels of symbolic representation in DNA that demands a design. DNA has a LANGUAGE with syntax, words, punctuation, definitions, etc.

Here is the breaking point. It is possible for a human mind to imagine something as complex as a protein forming as a result of naturally occurring chemical processes even if the odds are vanishingly small. Then multiply that by the thousands of protein types needed. Still you could say, well given enough time, multiple universes, etc. it could happen. It sounds desperate to me but You can’t say the odds are zero. I should add that even the 'evolution explains everything' crowd can’t defend this 'Protein World' scenario, so they usually default to something like 'RNA world' as a precursor to first living cell. RNA is basically half of a DNA strand.

But to accept that this happened by random chance you would have to believe the following:

By random linking up of nucleotides (the four molecules that are in DNA), a machine language containing the words, letters, syntax and punctuation necessary for defining all the needed proteins for 'life' came about. Notice that I said 'defining' the proteins, not the proteins themselves or even the amino acids needed to make a protein.

To over simplify, DNA is a ‘recipe', an ordered list of instructions and ingredients on how to build thousands of different proteins. DNA itself cannot do anything with these instructions. In order to be built, the DNA instructions have to be transferred to a Ribosome, which in turn is a very complex protein itself (hopefully you see the chicken and egg problem here).

The Ribosome reads the symbolic list of the recipe and begins gathering the required amino acids called for in the list. It assembles the amino acids into a string in the order specified in the DNA strand sent to it. (in the form of what’s called ‘messenger RNA')

After the amino acids are strung together, Some simpler proteins will spontaneously fold into their final three dimensional shape but most require yet other proteins to actively form them in the correct way. If they are not folded correctly they will not function and are often toxic.

Hopefully you followed that but to summarize, complex combinations of amino acids are possible given enough time and material. The odds are not what I would call possible but you can’t say that a protein by accident is impossible, in spite of its complexity.

What cannot be reasonably believed is that 'nature' took that first accidental protein and then invented a symbolic language (encoded in DNA) that was able to be read and executed by that protein in order to make more proteins.

A protein by accident - maybe.

A symbolic language describing all the needed proteins for life and simultaneously a molecular machine that understands that language and able to build according to the instructions by accident? - Nope.

It is the symbolic nature of DNA's language that required 'design'.
farmerman
 
  -1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 06:08 am
@Leadfoot,
Yeh, there is a consistent belief that ribonucleics were a requisite to th formation of life. its been shown over and over that helical structures of iron banded organics and polymerization of fatty acids (all naturally formed in carbon enriched shales in salt water media) ,accomplish most oof the structure oof cells. W also know that prokaryotic cells were free pf nuclei , and energy sustaining bodies and other vacuoles.
The point is that the hypothesis of the RNA world and the invention of polypeptide linkage could have developed as long as a living cell were available. Further, the living cell concept seems to be showing us that certain functions like tropisms , replication , and nutrient manufacture seem to predate the RNA world.
hemical fossils indicate that no RNA or other of the nucleic acids had not formed .(We know this by the presence of specific salts that would remain after billions of yers. Instead we have indications of hains of polymers of complex esters , and fatty acids as well early order carbonate "fossils" inside the prokaryotic Archaea .
Formation of amino acids and their combinations by peptide and polypeptide linkage is easily accomplished in an energy intensive and reducing environment. Arrange a small group of only 8 small molecular units and thes e became the building blocks of life.(I always have insisted on prebiotic chemicals). Starting off with water , methane and a few others, we see these molecules occur naturally in many energy filled fields on erth(Hydroxyls, Carboxyls,Amino compounds ,(hown in the Miller Urey xperiments) Esters, (these form the lipids of a cell wall)Sulfyhydryls (combined with aminos , they form proteins) Carbonyls (form the polysaccharies =FOOD) , finally we arrive at PHOSPHATES which are the origin members of RNA ,DNA ADP,ATP, etc.


These are all naturally occuring "building bricks" subject to ordinary chemical linkage and POLYMERIZATION in presences of natural catalysts like Iron or Titanium salts.

Theres so much beyond just standing on DNA and RNA when it comes to origines of life.
I guess though, when you have to believe in something to underpin your worldview of an IDer any additional acceptance of natural occurrences kinda gets in the way of saying that evolution is also a "designers product'

I think you need to go back several more steps because youre stuck on how DNA looks like a barcode. I know, Thats somewhat satisfying I understand but its where science starts , not concludes



0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 06:24 am
Quote:
Further, the living cell concept seems to be showing us that certain functions like tropisms , replication , and nutrient manufacture seem to predate the RNA world.
OK, let’s rephrase that. The first cell, with all its functioning organelles formed by accidental mixing of inorganic material. That’s a stretch but let’s go with that theory.

Then After that amazing thing happened, you are saying that 'nature' accidentally came up with a symbolic language (encoded in RNA/DNA) that perfectly described that accident along with a molecular machine that could read that language and make copies of all the organelles and then split itself in two independent cells.

Can you site some source that supports such a story?

farmerman
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 07:01 am
@Leadfoot,
the geochemistry of the Isua Formation shows that Archea fossils exist without osteocalcin ( a fossil leftover of ribonucleics ). As Bob HAzens work on the "evolution of minerals on earth" hypothesizes, The minerals available to more complex life chemistry occured almost a BILLION years after first life appeared on earth.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 07:09 am
That was a 'scientific' non sequitur. As cool as it was, it addressed nothing I said.

0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  3  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 07:55 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

is the assembly of rust or CO2 or Ammoniated organic compounds subject to design? Was it ever?

If you understand chemistry, then you understand that molecules 'design' themselves according to the electron configurations and bonds formations that are allowable between different types of atoms.

Quote:
If you believe in design by intelligence , all I wish to understand is "HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS"?

I've told you that you have to define intelligence, what it is and what it isn't; and then you have to trace back the evolutionary path of intelligence from its origins and before.

When I compared it to tracing back the evolution of hands from paws or feet, you brought up fins and then wanted to avoid the forest level by fixating at details of the trees, so to speak.

You don't want to just do a cursory and somewhat speculative trace-back through numerous evolutionary steps, which can be done with a reasonable degree of validity at the broadest level. E.g. you know hands evolved from the same structures as paws and feet (and fins), and you know that they evolved as part of appendages, which themselves must have evolved from something in worms or other early animals with musculature that was somehow differentiating into independently-moving parts . . . or maybe skeletal differentiation was first and the musculature adapted to make use of the different bones that were forming. These are interesting questions for science, but the point is that without answering them, we can still look back and ask the questions because we know there was some evolutionary precursor to everything we can observe in the present, correct?

So with intelligence, it is the same. We observe it in the present, so there has to be an evolutionary path that traces all the way back to before life-as-we-know-it existed, and that latent potential for intelligence was (and still is) built into every aspect of the universe; so how can we assume to know the limits for how that potential can and can't be expressed in various forms? E.g. how do we know the Earth/sun isn't intelligent in its own way, and that the galaxy is, etc.? We are conscious of what our brains are doing, so we experience intelligence by witnessing our own mental activity, so why do we assume we are the only structures that experience consciousness of what is going on within themselves? Why do we assume a brain is the only organ that experiences consciousness? Granted, the brain seems to be the only organ that experiences centralized consciousness, which allows us to pull together nerve impulses from around the body to synthesize a composite picture of different senses, thoughts, and feelings/emotions; but that doesn't mean there isn't some more fundamental/direct form of consciousness that happens with all matter-energy, which is likely since the brain is just a matter-energy system like every other system in the universe.
hingehead
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 08:03 am
@livinglava,
Quote:
that molecules 'design' themselves according

Yeah nah.

Like silicon and oxygen 'design' themselve sto be quartz.

I've been tolerating you but you've jumped the shark. Consider yourself blocked.
https://media1.tenor.com/images/6fc3b684e6a655fc6040f94e72865b2c/tenor.gif?itemid=16540292

edgarblythe
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 08:17 am
@hingehead,
Good call.
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  2  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 09:43 am
@hingehead,
hingehead wrote:

Quote:
that molecules 'design' themselves according

Yeah nah.

Like silicon and oxygen 'design' themselve sto be quartz.

I've been tolerating you but you've jumped the shark. Consider yourself blocked.

It's a good thing you have a knee-jerk reflex to tell you that the word, 'design' doesn't apply to atoms configuring themselves into molecules, because otherwise you wouldn't have any way of thinking about and/or discussing it at all, would you?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 11:49 am
@hingehead,
Shitty call. The 'xxxx' usually indicates that you don’t intend it to be literal. You ignored his factual part of the explanation. So it was a cheap dodge.

But then it could be argued that the elegant interactions between atoms is a pretty damn amazing tinker-toy kit to have happened by 'accident'.

PS: 'accident' in this case does not mean a bearded old man upstairs slipped up in the lab one day.
farmerman
 
  0  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 12:38 pm
@livinglava,
Quote:
then you understand that molecules 'design' themselves according to the electron configurations and bonds formations that are allowable between different types of atoms.
ahhhh, simplicity. How does a "molecule of oxygen, calcium and silicon choose to"design" itself into a t least 5 different compounds ??
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 12:42 pm
@livinglava,
Youve recited an evolutionary tale quite admirably but youve failed to iscuss how fins become paws, or wings and what caused such anatomical respones??

You and Leadfoot are convincedabout a master planner. I have not heard a thing thats convincing. Evolution iisnt "stamp collecting" Its testable and doesnt always involve "gene drivers".

Quote:
I've told you that you have to define intelligence
Scuse me, Im not obligated to define anything other than chemical reactions and biological adaptation. It appears to me that , ince you guys are the resident IDers , its really up to YOU to define the intelligence in which you profess a belief.
Jasper10
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 12:47 pm
@littlek,
Do you think that there is anti atheism? I’m not taking about Christianity I’m talking about anti atheism.After all there is matter and anti matter.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 12:57 pm
@Leadfoot,
Quote:
But then it could be argued that the elegant interactions between atoms is a pretty damn amazing tinker-toy kit to have happened by 'accident'
REALLY?? like Armand Hammer said, Im all ears. I want to heaar about your Nobel Prize winning speech about how some guy in the sky makes iron oxidize into 3 different chemical forms and copper corrodes into 2.
If you look at the pperiodic table and its arrangement, you get a briefing into the way elements exist in different environments of the earth
0 Replies
 
livinglava
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 01:35 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Youve recited an evolutionary tale quite admirably but youve failed to iscuss how fins become paws, or wings and what caused such anatomical respones??

That's not the point. The point is that there is a latent potential for them to spawn from earlier forms and evolve. You want to make everything into a test of proof, but why do you need proof to see that paws, feet, and fins and appendages generally evolve from some more general aspect of animal anatomy?

Quote:
You and Leadfoot are convincedabout a master planner. I have not heard a thing thats convincing. Evolution iisnt "stamp collecting" Its testable and doesnt always involve "gene drivers".

There doesn't need to be a 'master planner' in the sense you think about it because the universe just works the way it does and there is consciousness of it. Human creativity is just a manifestation of a fundamental aspect of the universe, which is to create and be aware of what it is doing. Intelligence is just built into the design process. What you call "master planning," is just learning through trial and error at the level of theory-building. There is no fundamental difference between theory and practice because theory is just practicing something at the theoretical level before you undertake it at the material level. DNA contains the theory of cell-building, tissue differentiation, etc. and DNA plans itself by trial and error. Evolution is simultaneously a process of theory and practice, where each time mitosis or meiosis occurs, the theory gets reviewed and edited before being sent back into operation as a new organism to test out the changes.

Quote:

Quote:
I've told you that you have to define intelligence
Scuse me, Im not obligated to define anything other than chemical reactions and biological adaptation. It appears to me that , ince you guys are the resident IDers , its really up to YOU to define the intelligence in which you profess a belief.

Just because I phrased what I said with the words, "you have to define intelligence," that wasn't an obligation, just a manner of speaking. All I was saying is that if you start with a definition of what constitutes intelligence, you can then trace it back through its evolutionary path, the same as you can trace hands back to feet/paws, and you can go back further and find appendages prior to differentiation into feet/legs/etc.

Intelligence exists in various forms in lower animals and even in plants. Intelligence is built into the cells that cause a plant to turn toward light or reach toward water, for example. These forms of intelligence are designed/built by the evolutionary process, so intelligence is built into evolution. You could say intelligence is even built into the way atoms are organized so that they only bond with certain other atoms at certain energy levels, etc. Intelligence is fundamentally built into the organized structures of nature.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 05:21 pm
Quote:
Leadfoot Quote:
But then it could be argued that the elegant interactions between atoms is a pretty damn amazing tinker-toy kit to have happened by 'accident'

Farmer:
REALLY?? like Armand Hammer said, Im all ears. I want to heaar about your Nobel Prize winning speech about how some guy in the sky makes iron oxidize into 3 different chemical forms and copper corrodes into 2.
If you look at the pperiodic table and its arrangement, you get a briefing into the way elements exist in different environments of the earth
Not what I was getting at.

What I am getting at was the fine tuning argument in physics. It seems to be fined tuned specifically for biological life. All those constants, bonding energies, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity, speed of light, etc.

Seems unlikely but It can be argued that the initial burst of energy that made the Big Bang spontaneously arranged itself as we see it in the unified theory of today, so I don’t rely solely on that. But the design of DNA based life is not something that spontaneously pops out of those laws, your opinion on that notwithstanding.

So since the design in biological life is so apparent, it is reasonable to think that the same designer was involved in the design of those fine tuned constants in physics as well.

farmerman
 
  3  
Fri 12 Jun, 2020 10:10 pm
@Leadfoot,
AHHH the Old "Goldilocks zone "eh?

Life seems to be fairly determined.Remember, when life began, it was a much different environment.It was the time of the "purple skies". Life of the First Billion years was nothing like that of the last. First life for its first billion years was mostly methanogenic and extremophilic, so you feel that there was a reason that a "designer" set up all thos extreme conditions just so it could evolve itself out as the Designer then decided to make life totally change the enviironment by "contaminating its cradle environment with the noxious gas Oxygen.
As far as being convinced that there is evidence that life is "designed" You really never get beyond that simplistic statement. Its like
"Well, we know that the moon is made of green cheese so we know there must be a big cow involved".
The planet really wasnt set up as the Goldilocks zone, Goldilocks evolved through the planets nascent environment. I dont believe theres any evidence to say it was the other way around.

At least youve announced that you believe that your "Designer" was busy futzing with the environment so as to create and evolve life to initiate the 5 big extinction events and (now) is hard at work on the 6th .
I think that' too much to have to believe without any proof. I think Ill stick with science, it can look at how life evolved without so many pre set conditions. All thats needed is liquid water, and the 6 most available elements in the universe.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sat 13 Jun, 2020 01:57 am
Quote:
All thats needed is liquid water, and the 6 most available elements in the universe.
An assertion made on circumstantial evidence not backed up by experiment.

And please don’t trot out Miller- Urey again as 'proof'. A cell or any other living organism has never been demonstrated to occur naturally or by lab experimental result, even after feeding in plenty of 'building blocks' and best possible environment in a lab full of 'scientists' who did their very best to hang their Nobel hopes on it.

Cows make cow-pies that some people built simple huts out of. It took design to build a hut even when the building blocks were just laying around. No huts ever built themselves naturally, even under those conditions. And A living organism is even less likely 'naturally' than a hut made of bullshit. Which is what your assertion is made of.
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 702
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/06/2023 at 11:50:32