Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Cmon why wont you debate me about your own recommended book about the "God Hypothesis"??
.

Farmerman claimed:
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 .

Leadfoot replied:

Just for the record, here's why I don’t believe it's '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 amino acids can potentially 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 are made of only 20 of them 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.

Each protein starts out as a very specifically ordered chain of 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 yet another different 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'.

The simplest example that illustrates the basic problem of 'accidental life' is to understand what a protein is

WHEN id you think that yoou got me re your "God Hypothesis " book. Ive ansere you an you changed the subjest and then quit the whole thing,Iv been the on poking YOU to spk up if you are that impressed with the Discovery Instituts "Faculty"

My lat pointwas that there isnt a spot pf ral scinc going on in that place. Its just a bd of reactionary Religious types with Fundamnta blifs but dont wish to soun lik Holy Rollers

Farmer said:
Quote:
your argument is specious. id love to see some evidence to make the arguments that meyer pumps out.
like his "fine tuning argument"(p263)

Leadfoot replied:
Here’s a snippet from that chapter in the book.

Quote:
“The Oxford physicist Sir Roger Penrose, who collaborated with Stephen Hawking in proving cosmological singularity theorems and later calculated the exquisite and hyper-exponential fine tuning of the initial entropy of the universe. Penrose determined that getting a universe such as ours with highly ordered configurations of matter required an exquisite degree of initial fine tuning—an incredibly improbable low-entropy set of initial conditions.”

— Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe by Stephen C. Meyer
https://a.co/ghTw3qt

There was no religious mumbo- jumbo there. I’ll let farmer argue that point with sir Roger Penrose.

I have to say that I am shocked by farmer's ignorance of the scientific underpinnings of the fine tuning argument. The general outlines of the argument are known by anyone with an interest in origins of life. But maybe he really has none.

Farmer said:
Are you certain that Penrose "proved anything"?

people "blow off" other people all the time and its the way of science.

The believers merely present arguments why they feel science is wrong but never present any alternatives.