27 of 28
27
will freethinkers accept god if they find evidence?
Posted: 05 May 2013 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 391 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2008-08-14
asanta - 05 May 2013 12:31 PM
VYAZMA - 05 May 2013 11:53 AM

So please Adonnai88…give me one example of an irreducible complex system.

He used the flagellum and the eye as examples earlier. It shows me he is just cutting and pasting without any real understanding of biology…..nor does he wish to understand. Intellectual dishonesty.

Ok great Asanta, we can use this for starters. We can reduce the eyeball down to parts(iris, cornea etc) These can further be reduced down to cells.  This can further be reduced down to molecules….etc etc…There- reduced!
Give any one of us another one Adonnai.  There’s people on here that are far smarter than me, with scientific expertise who can reduce any “complex system” down to simpler parts.
And yes…I know where this leads…..

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 392 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6011
Joined  2009-02-26
GdB - 05 May 2013 10:55 AM

Well, Popper is just wrong. Such mechanisms can be built up by other, simpler mechanisms. What is a chicken-egg process now, must not always have been.

To give an example of computer science: Unix is written in the computer language C. However, to compile a C program so that it can run, you must install the compile-program on a computer, and for that you need an operating system like Unix. So now you would say that this is impossible: Unix is written in C, and C programs runs under Unix. They are completely interdependent. Of course, we know that it originally began with people that cumbersome wrote the first C-compiler in machine code. More primitive programs that did the job.

Same with abiogenesis: simple mechanisms evolved to more complex ones, in which everything is interdependent. That is logically perfectly possible, and so it is a scientific question to find out how it happened, instead of yelling ‘oh I cannot imagine how this could have arisen, so it is God!’.

Think about it: such a bridge could never have ‘arisen’ because if you build it up from the sides, those sides will crash before they reached the middle, the left side cannot exist without the right side, and the other way round:

250px-Pont_du_Diable_2.JPG

Of course, if the intent to get across the river, the army ants have a very efficient solution. Their design of a bridge is very simple. They just keep marching in until their dead bodies create a bridge and the rest of the column passes very quickly. Would you call this intentional architecture or just brute natural instinct, which “by chance” actually works and is now an observable way for ants to cross streams.

[ Edited: 05 May 2013 12:47 PM by Write4U ]
 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 12:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 393 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
DarronS - 05 May 2013 10:39 AM
Adonai888 - 05 May 2013 08:39 AM
DarronS - 05 May 2013 06:43 AM

Well then at least answer my question. What role does chance play in natural selection?

none.

Thank you for answering this at last. Now I know you have no idea how natural selection works.

What role does natural selection play when it comes to the quest of how life began ?

None. Natural selection came about after life began. If you don’t understand the difference you will never understand how evolution works. Raising the origin of life question when discussing evolution is a red herring.

Talk Origins has a good explanation here. Scroll down to “The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.”

There is probably no other statement which is a better indication that the arguer doesn’t understand evolution. Chance certainly plays a large part in evolution, but this argument completely ignores the fundamental role of natural selection, and selection is the very opposite of chance. Chance, in the form of mutations, provides genetic variation, which is the raw material that natural selection has to work with. From there, natural selection sorts out certain variations. Those variations which give greater reproductive success to their possessors (and chance ensures that such beneficial mutations will be inevitable) are retained, and less successful variations are weeded out. When the environment changes, or when organisms move to a different environment, different variations are selected, leading eventually to different species. Harmful mutations usually die out quickly, so they don’t interfere with the process of beneficial mutations accumulating.

You have completely ignored the explanations i presented, that show that natural selection, and mutation are no driving force for anything previous to first life existed. If you want to learn something, you need to leave your preconceived bias a littlebid on side.
And stop arguing that i do not understand how evolution works.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 394 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
GdB - 05 May 2013 10:55 AM

Well, Popper is just wrong. Such mechanisms can be built up by other, simpler mechanisms. What is a chicken-egg process now, must not always have been.

To give an example of computer science: Unix is written in the computer language C. However, to compile a C program so that it can run, you must install the compile-program on a computer, and for that you need an operating system like Unix. So now you would say that this is impossible: Unix is written in C, and C programs runs under Unix. They are completely interdependent. Of course, we know that it originally began with people that cumbersome wrote the first C-compiler in machine code. More primitive programs that did the job.

your computer program only runs, because a intelligent designer programmed it…...and made them work together afterwards. See if that would be possible without intelligence involved.

Same with abiogenesis: simple mechanisms evolved to more complex ones, in which everything is interdependent.

baseless assertion.

That is logically perfectly possible,

provide evidence…..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 395 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
StephenLawrence - 05 May 2013 11:32 AM
Adonai888 - 05 May 2013 08:42 AM

No. because irreducible complex systems cannot arise through evolution, intelligent design explains the phenomenas we see best.

What do you mean by that?

Take the turtle. What are you saying happened, if it isn’t a result of an evolutionary process then how did turtles get here?

Did the first turtle just appear one day out of the blue at the will of God? Or did God put some physical process in place which produced the turtle?

Stephen

i don’t know HOW God created all living beings, beside what the bible tells us : through the power of his word.  Thanks for bringing up the example of turtles.  Fact remains, that there is no evolution track in the fossil record of how turtles evolved gradually. The most ancient turtles are fully evolved, and very similar to the ones we see today.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 396 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
Write4U - 05 May 2013 12:32 PM
Adonai888 - 05 May 2013 08:39 AM
DarronS - 05 May 2013 06:43 AM

Well then at least answer my question. What role does chance play in natural selection?

none.

What role does natural selection play when it comes to the quest of how life began ?

This is odd. This very exchange is an example of failed evolution.

I’ll give you an example of chance play in natural selection.

Abiogenesis - a reasonable answer to explain how live arise on earth ?

If you were truly a student of Evolution, you would have learned to spell (communicate) the word “life” correctly as well as using the proper tense in your use of verbs.  If you were a student of English, your evolutionary progress in that language is inadequate, and as a linguist YOU FAIL (natural selection). Sorry, you do not get to become a theoretic scientist until you have passed the Natural test for linguists. Once you learn to read write and spell correctly, you can start discussing “evolution”.

I ran across this todbit “by chance” but If I were a teacher, you’d fail as an English linguist and therefore also as Evolutionist. When you get the sentence right, you will get the chance to advance into the more complex considerations of “evolutionary possibilities of life arising (emerging) on earth”

English is not my native language. I grow up in german speaking part of switzerland, my parents are italians, so i grow up bilingue, german and italian. Afterwards i made english course of 3 month, and learned to speak fluently portuguese. I live in brazil.
Furthermore, i speak frensh, which i learned at school, and a littlebit spanish.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 397 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2008-08-14

You have completely ignored the explanations i presented, that show that natural selection, and mutation are no driving force for anything previous to first life existed. If you want to learn something, you need to leave your preconceived bias a littlebid on side.
And stop arguing that I do not understand how evolution works.
Adonnai-

We don’t know how far back evolution goes. Science can’t go back that far.
Evolution and DNA(or proto DNA) could have come to Earth on a meteor millions of years ago.
Another system with life could have exploded and carried proteins or crystalline molecules that were proto-life here to Earth and other places.
The conditions and timing were right for Earth.
Are you suggesting that science should have to stand or fall on it’s ability to see that far back in time?
That’s the definition of science being incomplete.  You want to fill in the incompleteness with god.(or intelligent design)
I am glad you are refining your argument.  It does sound better.  Your using a little more logic and reason.
However you have made posts in the past that hurt your argument overall.  The quotes from the “agnostic scientists” didn’t help.
You want to fill in the incompleteness with god because billions of people have always done this. The feeling of majority brings comfort and assuredness.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 398 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
VYAZMA - 05 May 2013 12:41 PM
asanta - 05 May 2013 12:31 PM
VYAZMA - 05 May 2013 11:53 AM

So please Adonnai88…give me one example of an irreducible complex system.

He used the flagellum and the eye as examples earlier. It shows me he is just cutting and pasting without any real understanding of biology…..nor does he wish to understand. Intellectual dishonesty.

Ok great Asanta, we can use this for starters. We can reduce the eyeball down to parts(iris, cornea etc) These can further be reduced down to cells.  This can further be reduced down to molecules….etc etc…There- reduced!
Give any one of us another one Adonnai.  There’s people on here that are far smarter than me, with scientific expertise who can reduce any “complex system” down to simpler parts.
And yes…I know where this leads…..

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-10-argument-irreducible-complexity

the researchers admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own,’ because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures,’ and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

It is also fallacious to point to a series of more complex eyes in nature, and then argue that this presents an evolutionary sequence. This is like arranging a number of different types of aircraft in order of complexity, then claiming that the simple aircraft evolved into complex ones, as opposed to being designed. For one thing, eyes can’t descend from other eyes per se; rather, organisms pass on genes for eyes to their descendants. This is important when considering the nautilus eye, a pinhole camera. This cannot possibly be an ancestor of the vertebrate lens/camera eye, because the nautilus as a whole is not an ancestor of the vertebrates, even according to the evolutionists!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 399 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2008-08-14

the researchers admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own,’ because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures,’ and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

Adonnai-

Do you see the massive contradiction in the 2 bolded phrases?
Yes or no? C’mon man!  Get up to speed. 
Are you capable of seeing that contradiction?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 400 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
VYAZMA - 05 May 2013 01:06 PM

You have completely ignored the explanations i presented, that show that natural selection, and mutation are no driving force for anything previous to first life existed. If you want to learn something, you need to leave your preconceived bias a littlebid on side.
And stop arguing that I do not understand how evolution works.
Adonnai-

We don’t know how far back evolution goes. Science can’t go back that far.
Evolution and DNA(or proto DNA) could have come to Earth on a meteor millions of years ago.

oh, sure. The old tired panspermia argument.

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Verac/C-1007.htm

Knowing that no primordial soup existed on earth, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe did not limit their calculations to just this planet, but looked at the probability of life to form anywhere in the universe. Hoyle summarizes what they found concerning the likelihood of an accidental formation of the most basic DNA:

The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in (1020)2000 = 1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court… Even the need for only two enzymes to operate in association is sufficient to make the situation quite implausible… There is no way in which we can expect to avoid the need for information, no way in which we can simply get by with a bigger and better organic soup..

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 401 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
VYAZMA - 05 May 2013 01:14 PM

the researchers admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own,’ because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures,’ and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

Adonnai-

Do you see the massive contradiction in the 2 bolded phrases?
Yes or no? C’mon man!  Get up to speed. 
Are you capable of seeing that contradiction?

no, i dont.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 402 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4455
Joined  2007-08-31
Adonai888 - 05 May 2013 12:50 PM

And stop arguing that i do not understand how evolution works.

Aber es ist so klar, dass du wirklich nichts von Evolution verstehst! (But is is so clear that you do not understand evolution!)

My example with Unix and C shows that a circular situation now, can have grown from simpler structures, that were not circular. Your argument was that that cannot be.

Sorry, you have only ‘God of the gaps’ arguments. No evidence at all.

We might not have evidence that naturalism is true, but it works remarkably well, as we see in the sciences. There is no reason to believe that it will not go on. Our present technology is based on science. Huge parts of medicine are based on evolution, and evolution is the only theory in town that explains the fossils we find, and the order of them in geological layers, it explains the similarity in the anatomy of organisms, their chemical functioning etc. With ‘God’ you can explain everything, and therefore it explains nothing. Popper would agree. The ‘God’ theory is not falsifiable, and therefore is not a scientific theory.

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 403 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2008-08-14
Adonai888 - 05 May 2013 01:21 PM
VYAZMA - 05 May 2013 01:14 PM

the researchers admitted ‘an eye makes little sense on its own,’ because the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to ‘I must take evasive measures,’ and be able to act on this information for it to have any selective value. Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

Adonnai-

Do you see the massive contradiction in the 2 bolded phrases?
Yes or no? C’mon man!  Get up to speed. 
Are you capable of seeing that contradiction?

no, i dont.

The first phrase states that the eyeball makes little sense on it’s own.  The last phrase states that in fact the eyeball does make sense on it’s own.
Of course we know the rest of the complex machinery that is hooked up to the eyeballs.
I’m only pointing out the crappy garbage you are quoting. the whole paragraph seems very irrelevant to any ideas of “irreducible complex systems”.
In fact the paragraph supports the idea that a complex system like the eye CAN be reduced!

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 404 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4446
Joined  2008-08-14

oh, sure. The old tired panspermia argument.-Adonnai

No no. That’s not my argument.  Its just one of many possibilities.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 May 2013 01:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 405 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  384
Joined  2009-05-03
VYAZMA - 05 May 2013 01:28 PM

oh, sure. The old tired panspermia argument.-Adonnai

No no. That’s not my argument.  Its just one of many possibilities.

No, its not a possibility.

http://www.reasons.org/articles/explanation-for-origin-of-lifes-molecular-handedness-is-insoluble

Based on this behavior, the Columbia team proposes the following scenario to explain how homochirality originated. First, they note that in meteorites like Murchison, a slight chiral excess has been detected for some amino acids recovered from the meteorite. Then they argue that meteorites delivering amino acids to early Earth would seed the oceans with a slight chiral excess of amino acids. As the oceans waters washed onto ancient shorelines and water evaporated, amino acid crystals would form, leaving behind an even greater chiral excess in the waters that returned to the oceans. Eventually, the amino acids in the oceans would be populated with nearly 100% of one enantiomer at the expense of the other. This end result, they claim, becomes the birth of homochirality as this chiral excess gets transferred to molecules taking part in the origin-of-life process.

At first glance this scenario seems quite reasonable. Closer examination, however, exposes a fundamental problem: chiral excess in Earth’s oceans will not promote homochirality in life molecules, but, in fact, detracts from it.

To illustrate, consider the reactions between amino acids to make peptides (small protein chains). Amino acids will not react with each other in water to form peptides. (In water the reverse reaction, in which peptides break down into the constitutive amino acids, is favored.) Origin-of-life researchers posit that this difficulty can be overcome if ocean waters deposit amino acids onto ancient shorelines. As the water evaporates, the reaction between amino acids becomes more likely. Additionally, the minerals on the shore can serve as catalysts promoting the reaction.

Herein lies the difficulty. According to the mechanism proposed by the Columbia chemists, the amino acids deposited on the shore will be a racemic mixture, displaying little if any chiral excess. The chirally enriched amino acids will be diluted out in the ocean waters and unable to react to form peptides.

In reality, the mechanism proposed by the Columbia scientists would inhibit the birth of homochirality, not promote it. Therefore, the homochirality problem still represents an “elbow-in-the-side” of chemical evolutionary explanations for the origin of life.

Profile
 
 
   
27 of 28
27