Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

This **** just couldn't happen by accident

when you spend a bit of time on how chem bonds work and happen. Maybe the inevitability of bonding and surface chemistry reactions will sink in and not require you to finish your quotes with your above conclusion. Just because somethings complex qnd occurs under special rules, we see it happen every day and the only commonality is that all these chemicals have same structures(just different arrangements). A protein in beef is the same as a protein in a cell. Polypeptide linkage a plus on one side and minus on the other with same **** in between.

kinesins are a whole family, and spacific ones can enact specific proteins in mitochondria to provide the energy and control mechanisms of seed germination in plants or mitosis and meiosis in all orgqnisms. Im glad you brought em up because, Like the control of blood clotting in animals, the functions of proteins in the energy source cells, can be traced further and further bck in simplified structures s a result of evolution.
Think about it, all raties hqve evolved in separate climes isolated reproductively yet the reactions are roughly the same (minus on one siide, plus on the other and sevearl ADP/ATP bodies providing the enrgy that is "mined " by a bunch separate groups of kinesins.

The adaptation of the various sevral genera of ratites to their environments causes the chemical works to "kick in" and provide the same functions but usually
by developing different anatomical structures doing the work.

You seem to be amazed at all the same type of chemistry eeking out different results.

ASI said before, the use of the word "coded" doesnt imply that some high power is behind anything. Whereas you have provided yourself with two outs
1Its either coded
2or its chaotic

can you try to keep your mind a bit more critically open to whats implicit or not.

Remember, there are archeozoa that do not have mitochondria in their cell walls and do not use the biochemitry we talk about. And there are whole groups of extremophiles that get all their energy from sulfur metabolisis or ferro- oxidation. We sit within a small category of life forms that have taken RNA to a higher form.

Im gonna read frescos paper now. Lets see ho we see that ubmission "differently" eh?

PS, top trying to needle me about being subversive to my stated methods . I dont try to disport with all this and Im certinly open to focused argument. JUST PLEEEZE stop accusing me of being rude when I see you as being similarly rude except in a fashion that's quite passive aggressive .
You often sound like some southern politician whose saying "Im not gonna call my opponent an asshole, NOOO not me"

1 Reply

@fresco,

Nice article. Thanks.

1 Reply

@fresco,

From your linked article:

Quote:

Many researchers might question the value of DKS given the difficulty in making it fully quantitative.

Count me among them. It's more wishful thinking than verifiable science. You might note that it has not been demonstrated experimentally.

DKS is not at all convincing. It merely says that life does not violate the laws of energy (nobody said it does AFAIK) and the rest is basically saying - **** Happens.

It does not explain the emergence of INFORMATION which as the article I linked to says is the absolute cornerstone Dogma" of Molecular Biology.

I sort of disagree with that. The real dogma is that this information generated itself 'naturally' which is another way of saying 'accidentally'.
If that were true, how would the SETI project have any hope of detecting extra terrestrial life? They are listening for INFORMATION of even the simplest kind.

If 'DKS' is a real thing, who is to say that such information can't be spontaneously generated in a Nova, a neutron star , a black hole or some other phenomenon (remember S. Hawking saying information could escape a black hole as matter is torn apart?).

Cosmologists know and so do you that it has never happened and likely never will. And so they keep listening for the ONE thing that signifies intelligent life - Information.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

PS, top trying to needle me about being subversive to my stated methods... JUST PLEEEZE stop accusing me of being rude when I see you as being similarly rude except in a fashion that's quite passive aggressive .
You often sound like some southern politician whose saying "Im not gonna call my opponent an asshole, NOOO not me"

Here is what I actually said:

Quote:

But, as the narrator [in the linked video] says, now they [biologists] take it for granted (like farmer does)

By 'for granted' I meant you don't see these amazing cellular mechanisms as anything but ordinary chemical reactions, which is what you told me they were. Was there something else?

You seem awfully thin skinned at times.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

I ws referring to recent weeks not that line. That was at least strait up front .

1 Reply

@fresco,

There i much here that follows the work of Margulis here she looked at thecapturing of nascent Pre life "genomes" . Another means that Pascal didnt mention is the "pre life assemblage of two unique chemical states(like oxidation nd capture of amino compounds on the spirals of Iron oxyhydroxides and forming structures that mimic pre life ribose sugar polymers with iron acting almost parallel to the way RNA nucleotides appear. The iron oxyhydroxides only bond to hydrated Oxides (Like in DNA the purines only bond with the pyrimidines and themselves).

The paper is a good summary of several schema(-1)
and what we are now looking at in the field AND IN THE lab. I dont believe its that original though.

I was interested in the references they used. I think theres where much good stuff on methods makes its appearance. Like the synthesis of simple sugars by photo redox(no. 67)and coupling of phosphorylation to electron and hydrogen transferby chemical osmosis(no. 46).

Interestingly they sort-of, apologize for transcending standard chemistry by introducing the "systems chem and biology" approach. Normal chem has usually been used to take stuff apart and reassemble it. Systems approach looks at the more complex assembly of various compounds from the ground up.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

You seem awfully thin skinned at times.

You should see him when he gets into a discussion where he knows he has to lie about science to provide cover for the 9/11 war criminals of the Bush/Cheney cabal.

0 Replies

Broken record much?!

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I sort of disagree with that. The real dogma is that this information generated itself 'naturally' which is another way of saying 'accidentally'.

If that were true, how would the SETI project have any hope of detecting extra terrestrial life? They are listening for INFORMATION of even the simplest kind.

Ah-hahahahahahahahahahahahaha . . .

You can't make up sh*t that funny.

Apart from embarrassingly blatant question-begging, you lard your a priori assumptions with self-serving definitions. The information to which you refer exists only in the eye of the beholder. Organic molecules are, you know, ubiquitous. The orbital telescopes have demonstrated that time and again. Oh . . . oh, wait . . . they're under the control of particpants in the conspiracy to deny god, right?

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

NB
A more 'digestible' version is perhaps the Andy Pross paperback 'What is Life?'.

(The interesting philosophical points for me are 1. The apparent success of reductionism, and 2. the deflation of the status of individual organisms relative to 'the life process'.)

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I ws referring to recent weeks not that line. That was at least strait up front .

I'll have to go back over them. The only ones I recall in recent weeks were about cars and quite pleasant.

My apologies if any offended you.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

What you were actually looking for is historical record, Ragman.

farmerman badly abuses his responsibility to science. There a a lot of folks doing that. This is indisputable science, stuff that I'm sure you could even grasp.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

The last set of dicussions in which we were iinvolved were closed off by you in what I called a "hissy fit" where you got all incensed about how easy evolution, particularly of the macro persuasion, could be seen in stuff like horshoe crabs.
I think we each take threads individually and treat each other accordingly. There no reason for either you or me to get steamed about cqrs> (Unless you were the one who was orgasming over old Camaros, when the functional dynamommy limit of Bhp today is roughly 320 Bhp /L displacement. No Camaro (IMHO) has EVER reached that without a complete millennial engine turnabout .

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

if DKS is a real thing who is to say that such information can't be spontaneously generated in a nova a neutron star a black coal or some other phenomenon remember as Hawking saying information could escape a black hole as matter is torn apart?

Note that when ever information has to appear from nowhere. whether, it's creating Matter and atoms in supernova or life in a prehistoric ocean, it always happens someplace where we can't observe nor replicate, making it unfalsifiable. This lack of Falsifiability according to Karl Popper makes these theories unscientific in nature. Would this make them a belief system similar to a religion?

2 Replies

@Setanta,

He went to Creative Imagination School and got a PhD.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Quote:

Organic molecules are ubiquitous

What does the location or number of the molecules have to do with their origin or the origin of the information they contain. Or, the origins of life.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The origins of life.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Popper Evolved his own views since "Recantations"...(1963) In his"Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind" (1978) he said the following,

Quote:

" The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. . . . I mention this problem because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced by what these authorities say, I have in the past described the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to explain how the theory of natural selection could be untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural selection is a most successful metaphysical research programme. . . . [Popper, 1978, p. 344]

I have changed my mind about the testability(FALSIFIABILITY) and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. . . . [p. 345]

The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological theories; and considering the random character of the variations on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of exceptions is not surprising. [p. 346]

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

You needn’t go that far to disprove ID, because the book that claims ID is contradictory, has many errors, and omissions. To begin with, the Bible claims this planet is 7,000 years old. We know it’s much older based on scientific findings. It’s over 4.5 billion years old.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

Note that when ever information has to appear from nowhere. whether, it's creating Matter and atoms in supernova or life in a prehistoric ocean, it always happens someplace where we can't observe nor replicate, making it unfalsifiable. This lack of Falsifiability according to Karl Popper makes these theories unscientific in nature. Would this make them a belief system similar to a religion?

Yes, we're generalizing here but I think so. Just as some religions will postulate some pretty outrageous claims/fabrications to defend their beliefs from criticisms, Neo Darwinism is not above grasping at straws such as DKS to salvage a rapidly failing paradigm.

If they hope to save DKS from looking rediculous, they will have to openly admit that DKS works only in biological systems and no where else and explain why that is.

The theory itself is not at all limited to biology, it is applicable to any possible chemical, atomic or even quark interactions. If it had any validity, we should see examples of similar complexity in all these domains. But we don't.

DKS is just the latest doomed attempt to legitimize Neo Darwinism. Its supporters will probably abandon their faith in this theory as well and embrace the next theory that momentarily appears to support the Darwinian gospel.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know