Life's Irreducible Structure (DEBATE THREAD)

CMI ^ | Alex Williams

[GodGunsGuts]

What Betty Boop said and how! Did I mention you should write another book, Betty Boop? You never cease to amaze! And you are most welcome...I figured William’s argument would be right up your alley. To God be the glory!

All the best—GGG

[CottShop]

[[Do you have a link to the whole paper. I’m willing to bet that they have to intelligently set the initial conditions for this to happen. Link please.]]

Seriously, it’s nothign significant- it was nothign but another show of MICROEvoltuion and intelligent design- Joyce engineered a specific product that simply does not exist in nature,, then insinuated He ‘created life’- Coyoteman posted a thread on it and it was shown to be nothignm more than yet another falsely inflated claim- taking microevolution and implying it was macroevolution

[CottShop]

[[I’m going to continue asking why single celled organism do not become non viable when their generations are thousands of time shorter than human or animal generations.]]

Persoanlly I’d rather discuss the article later- but for now, simply because of Metaifnromation which helps maintain and tries to keep cells from the end product of entropy- non viability.

[[A microbe population has as many mutation or copy error events in a year as a human population would encounter in a million years, and yet microbes do not become extinct.]]

Yep- they are incredibly robust- but even htey have their species specific limits- they can not survive IF their own particular DESIGNED parameters has been violated- and should such a case happen, the only way to prevent non viability woudl be to introduce info fro ma higher source to be able to deal with that particular scenario- however, we nkow that lateral gene transference doesn’t happen except between very few like kinds, but even this has it’s limits.

[js1138]

The phrase “nested hierarchy” is rather key to the understanding of evidence for evolution. If it isn’t obvious to you what this means, It would be good to look it up.

http://www.isss.org/hierarchy.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml
http://www.toarchive.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

[count-your-change]

F=M? Nope, Force involves either acceleration or velocity so your physics is faulty. If F=M then M=F and one is not equal to the other.

Waves are particles. Why not height is width?
“Yes like measuring height vs width. You are measuring different aspects of the same thing.”

“What is the ‘cause’ of Energy? There is no ‘cause.’”

Yet your very own experience argues that every effect has a cause.
Cause or source of energy? Isaiah 40:26 identifies our creator as the first cause of energy.

[js1138]

If genetic entropy is a physical law, I’m going to ask why microbes don’t go extinct, considering they undergo as many copy errors in their genomes in a thousand years as multi-celled organisms would in a million years.

A physical law is mot waived simply because a designer wishes it to go away.

Do you have some basis for asserting that an entropy principle differs in operation for one form of life to another? Is there some design manual that you have access to that the rest of us don’t?

[CottShop]

[[The phrase “nested hierarchy” is rather key to the understanding of evidence for evolution. If it isn’t obvious to you what this means, It would be good to look it up.]]

I know what nested hiearchy is suppsoed to indicate- however, where is the evidnece that hte heiarchy leaps speices kinds? I’m askign you why similarities must mean common descent Before we get on to why human engineered biology (or rather human modified) is, in your words, distinguishable from natural common descent biology- I’m askign you why Homological systems must mean common descent as opposed to common design-

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

I follow the evidence. If you claim that all swans are white because you have seen thousands and thousands of white swans and not a single black swan, and I find a black swan, that is evidence that you are wrong. Science is based on falsification, not deductive reasoning.

Falsification is a subset of deductive reasoning, LG.

Further, as it applies to this discussion, again, you're attempting to build an argument from something entirely speculative. The double-slit experiment is widely open to interpretation with respect to its implications for causality, and most interested parties don't share the conclusions that you seem to think are set in stone. Sorry, but you're on shaky ground, and have no basis for pretending like you "proven" that there's no need for a creator. Even if your thesis were correct, it still wouldn't get you off the arche problem hook.

[GodGunsGuts]

The reason why I was asking is that I have read about several such experiments, and in each case they must intelligently control the initial conditions, otherwise the RNA will stick to everything it touches. In other words, the initial conditions are intelligently designed (to include the fabrication of the RNA molecule itself).

[CottShop]

[[If genetic entropy is a physical law, I’m going to ask why microbes don’t go extinct, considering they undergo as many copy errors in their genomes in a thousand years as multi-celled organisms would in a million years.]]

Good golly, I’vve answered htis several times-

[[A physical law is mot waived simply because a designer wishes it to go away.]]

Who said anyhtign abotu a physical law being waved? Again read my previous response on microbes to you- it explains it just fine

[[Do you have some basis for asserting that an entropy principle differs in operation for one form of life to another?]]

observation- soem psecies are higly tolorant of corruption, while others aren’t- Frog species are dissappearing at an alarming rate while cockroaches are not- now, can we get back to the paper? If you ask the quesiton again- I’ll be sleeping- but there is your answer.

[CottShop]

[[The reason why I was asking is that I have read about several such experiments, and in each case they must intelligently control the initial conditions, otherwise the RNA will stick to everything it touches.]]

This was quite the same GGG- intelligently designed- infact, it was a designer RNA that was used for hte experiment because a natural one presented problems that could not be overcome naturally- The article is one of htose ‘nothign new under the sun’ articles where they artifically inflate their claims to deceive people into thinking life could arise naturally and unintelligently- when the simply fact was that they had to engineer the RNA first before they could proceed with their ‘origins of life’ experiment

[count-your-change]

No mechanism will be forth coming as there is none plausible despite experiments, assumptions and goo in a bottle.

[metmom]

Non-living matter in all its combinations is inexorably subject to this law. Living beings, on the other hand, obviously have “strategies” for evading it, at least for a time (i.e., the time in which they are living. When they’re dead, the law reasserts itself).

There are times that certain laws or principles, can override others. Gravitation is certainly well established for our frame of reference, and yet there are things that temporarily over ride it; those being aerodynamics and buoyancy.

It appears that the laws of gravitation are no longer in effect and yet that is untrue.

The same with the 2nd law. Something in living systems is temporarily, and only slightly successfully, overriding it. I say slightly successfully because obvious deterioration begins to set in after a couple decades and seems to progress logarithmically after that. :(

[cacoethes_resipisco]

Note, I'm not making the claim that the experiment has anything to do with the origin of life (though it may). I'm pointing out that the existence of self-replicating RNA strands (however arrived at), falsifies Williams claim here:

"Autopoiesis literally means ‘self-making’ (from the Greek auto for self, and the verb poiéō meaning ‘I make’ or ‘I do’) and it refers to the unique ability of a living organism to continually repair and maintain itself—ultimately to the point of reproducing itself—using energy and raw materials from its environment. In contrast, an allopoietic system (from the Greek allo for other) such as a car factory, uses energy and raw materials to produce an organized structure (a car) which is something other than itself (a factory).9

Autopoiesis is a unique and amazing property of life—there is nothing else like it in the known universe..."

[GodGunsGuts]

That’s what I thought. Thanks for entering the fray and helping to mix things up. So far I have seen nothing to contradict Williams’ paper. I think he should submit it to the Evo journals so they can nix it without explanation (with heavy emphasis on “without explanation”).

[metmom]

When there is no acceleration, F=M. I left nothing out, I am simply trying to get to the lowest common denominator, to make everything as plain as possible.

F=ma.

If a=0 then ma = m(0) so the equation is F=ma=m(0)=0.

[tpanther]

For a Darwinist, the same must also apply to the origin of life—it must be an emergent property of matter. An emergent property of a system is some special arrangement that is not usually observed, but may arise through natural causes under the right environmental conditions.

---

My immediate reaction is the multiple posts I’ve read on here that claim darwinism doesn’t address origins. This seems to be a sheer act of desperation to me...as it’s been debunked too many times to count.

In regards to the water molecules, and silver...I also think of cardiac cells and fibers. Taking a sliver of cardiac tissue from the heart and looking at it under the microscope, it beats like a whole heart beats. Muscle fibers contract, neurons pulse, excretory cells from excretory organs excrete and so on.

It’s a mightily hollow explanation to explain that it’s just this way because of natural selection over billions of years. A much better explanation is since each of these cells obviously have a purpose, that there was some meaningful force behind their being and functions in the first place.

Proteins and basic chemicals forming together in such a way with this kind of complexity to form complex functions make more sense in that they were designed opposed to they “just are” via natural selection over (alot) of time; mechanisms and structures of purpose from no purposeful rational force behind it makes little sense if any to most people.

Even the simplest experiments have some kind of intelligent design behind them, the right chemicals, the right environment, etc...even these simple factors take enormous thought and trial and error by scientists and we’re nowhere near the idea that we can take these chemicals separately and add them together in just such an exact and necessary way to succeed to cause cells to beat on their own in order to eventually make a heart beat (on it’s own, structurally).

But to THEN think about these cells forming complex structures like a heart with ventricles and valves and adding in electrical current to the muscle, beating pulsating muscle, to in turn form a heart, one of billions or more of different KINDS of hearts...is too staggering to think all just happened with no purpose, randomly, over “alot of time”.

Just sorting out the differences between a hamster’s heart compared to a gerbil’s heart, or mice, or guinea pigs, etc. etc. etc. could take a lifetime and we still wouldn’t be close to understading the complexity.

But to then turn around and tell children there’s “no place for God in science class”, seems to be about as petty and arrogant as one CAN BE petty and arrogant!

The author nails it with his “exclusion by definition” and “ridicule” observations in part 2. As I’ve been saying all along, NO ONE has placed people with God hang-ups in charge of defining science and all too often the best they can do is ridicule, which does nothing but prove that they’re desperate and incapable of discussing the science; ironically while blubbering incoherently about only they and they alone are the keepers of all things scientific!

Overall a compelling paper and appeals to common sense for those that are not under the spell of the evo cult.

[GodGunsGuts]

We are talking about naturalistic explanations, not intelligently designed explanations. They are using intelligent design to copy what life already makes, and then championing the replicative properties of what already exists in biology. That doesn’t get anywhere near a naturalistic explanation for proto-life, not to mention explaining the autopoietic hierarchy, each step of which cannot be explained by the step below it, not to mention comprehensively integrated, information-driven, metabolic functions that integrate the same.

[LeGrande]

Then let me clarify. It is possible to disprove a theory but is is not possible to prove a theory. Negative proof is possible but positive proof is not.

If you have a theory that all swans are white and you can show the world a million white swans, does that prove your theory? Does finding an extra hundred thousand white swans prove your theory? No, because all someone has to do is come up with a black swan, that disproves the theory that all swans are white.

[LeGrande]

You have not falsified that God created life.

Define your God and Life and I will falsify your theory that your God created life : )