Posted on 01/12/2009 7:23:26 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
“Yes, force is mass, waves are particles, no cause and effect needed. The law of cause and effect is a philosophical argument, not a scientific law.”
Force is mass TIMES ACCELERATION, you left out the meat in meat and potatoes. Yes, just as e= not just mass, but mass
times c squared, a very big difference, but irrelevant to my point.
Cause and effect is the conclusion of observation and test. If something crawled out of a lab vessel the scientist would not only look at the effect but search for a cause knowing by his observations and knowledge of physics that every result or effect he has obtained had a cause. He would hardly dismiss such a search as a “philosophical argument”!
“waves are particles...”,
Oh dear! Newton's corpuscles of light come to life after hundreds of years and Max Plank never lived.
As was stated earlier, it depends on the instrument measuring, measure for waves, you get waves, etc.
Now, let's get back to the debate, shall we?
The argument seems to be that, since abiogenesis is not understood, goddidit. It’s a God of the gaps argument. I think such arguments diminish God. It also is not really about evolution, which describes changes in living things, presupposing those living things.
The really dangerous part of the argument is that some people may take it to heart, beliving our (likely temporary) ignorance is a key to the existence of God. That leaves their faith open to shattering once the ignorance is dispelled.
Thanks for noticing. I guess he had a need to clear his chest. All the best—GGG
“Look, GGG, the silence is deafening because you're DEAF. So it's a waste of time to expect to be heard by deaf people like you, and a lot of us know it.” [excerpt]By attacking the person and not the paper, you acknowledge the validity and accuracy of the paper.
[[It is rather common in these debates to see both positions argued by the same person, without irony.]]
Except that Denton gave NO evidence that macoreovlution happens- He only engaged in more assumptions and support-less claims in his second book- Behe beleives in ID, BUT Behe also beleives in common descent- however Behe has NO evidence to show CD- and offers nothign but speculations that quite frankly ignore natural laws, biological laws and impossibilities, and mathematical impossibilities- It’s fien that they beleive what they do, but with hte advent of hte article we’re discussing, and hte natural biological and mathematical impossibilties of naturalism, the evidnece is mounting that ID is nedded needed, and not just at soem molecular levels,
We don’t see Macroevolution being argued with evidence, We do however see ID beign argued using evidence that is far more reasonable than the hypothesis of Macroevo- The ebvidneces presented in this thread topic being yet another prime example.
==The argument seems to be that, since abiogenesis is not understood, goddidit.
You just assumed what must be proved.
As for the rest, it has nothing to do with the debate. If you wish to stay on topic, please respond to the papers that the affirmative is based on using arguments that are specific to the same. Thank you.
All the best—GGG
I hadn’t thought of that. But I must admit, that is a distinct possibility.
But isn’t that the whole point of neo-Darwinian evolution: namely that evolution is a product of random mutations plus natural selection? Are you positing that random mutations aren’t random, and that natural selection isn’t natural?
I think my answers are yes; no. But I don't get the connection between your questions and my statement.
That conclusion wasn’t stated or implied as I was clearly talking about an intelligent designer of the experiment in the words you quoted not the experiment its self.
But seeing that you brought the question up,
Are you suggesting that if a chemist demonstrates a reaction in the laboratory, that this implies the reaction could or must have occurred outside the laboratory?
I notice the evolutionists are turning tail and running in all directions. Apparently none of them want to put their money where their mouth is!
Can’t blame them. Their theory has been dead in the water for centuries! Thanks to hardworking online activists here and elsewhere, I say it’s a matter of a few short years before even the “esteemed” Ivy League “Ivory Towers” and the “publik skoolz” are forced by the facts to drop the hopeless façade of evolutionism!
Abiogenesis != Evolution
That we do not know how initial life came to be does not mean that we do not know how it changes over time. The paper is, in no way, shape, or form, about evolution, but about an entirely different topic.
Now, there is, in fact, a LOT of laboratory work going on in the field of abiogenesis. That anything particularly resembling existing DNA based life arose directly out of a prebiotic soup is not, afaik, on the list of possibilities under consideration. There’s still serious argument about whether genes or metabolism would have come first.
I won’t pretend to settle an argument which is raging, and likely will rage for quite some time, among the best and brightest scientific minds. I believe the author overreaches quite a bit in claiming to do so.
[[The argument seems to be that, since abiogenesis is not understood, goddidit.]]
Cacoethes- As I told What’shisname- The author has an OPINION abotu hwo or what hte itnelleigence is- however- the central theme is NOT abotu who or what the itnelleignece is, but rather the FACT that all we know abotu nature, it is beyond a reasonable doubt that nature is incapable of creating hte intelligently designed species examined i nthe article. You can either address this central theme or not- but making false claims abotu what hte article is about certainly doesn’t help shore up your beleif that ‘naturedidit’ without any evidence to support your beleif- infact, the evidneces show nature couldn’t have done it- and htis is precisely what hte article is about- you are projecting something onto the article that simp[ly should not be projected-
The paper (Part I and Part II) addresses both. You should read the papers and form SPECIFIC responses to the affirmative before wading into this debate.
All the best—GGG
I imagine there are a number of enantiomers that regardless of chirality are harmful to rabbits.
I also notice that the excerpt you posted referenced mice and rabbits being effected differently by the same thing.
The excerpt you posted did not address the affects that thalidomide had on humans. (Which is what the thread article referenced)
[[The paper is, in no way, shape, or form, about evolution, but about an entirely different topic.]]
This statement shows that either you didn’t read the papers, or that you simply don’t understand what is being said i nthem- He is making hte claim that ALL life shows IC- NOT just abiogeneis single cells
[[Now, there is, in fact, a LOT of laboratory work going on in the field of abiogenesis. That anything particularly resembling existing DNA based life arose directly out of a prebiotic soup is not, afaik, on the list of possibilities under consideration. There’s still serious argument about whether genes or metabolism would have come first.]]
This is ALL irrelevent ot the paper beign discussed- IF you have evidnece that IC can arise naturally fro mdirty chemicals, and that Intelligent megainformation arose purely naturalistically, then present it as a coutner argument-
[[I believe the author overreaches quite a bit in claiming to do so.]]
Why? That’s a pretty challow comment to make- Why is it over-reaching? Does it violate known scientific laws? Does it not have evidnece to back it up? Is there soemthign fro mnature which refutes what he is stating?
Are not random mutation and natural selection both thought to be natural phenomena? Is not random mutation supposed to be explainable in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry? Is not natural selection based on the natural world “selecting” favorable (and quite natural) random mutations?
Here’s an interesting bit of fairly recent information on the chirality problem. It seems that nature can and does sometimes produce amazingly lopsided chiralities:
Direct asymmetric intermolecular aldol reactions catalyzed by amino acids and small peptides.Córdova A, Zou W, Dziedzic P, Ibrahem I, Reyes E, Xu Y.
Department of Organic Chemistry, The Arrhenius Laboratory, Stockholm University, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. acordova@organ.su.se
In nature there are at least nineteen different acyclic amino acids that act as the building blocks of polypeptides and proteins with different functions. Here we report that alpha-amino acids, beta-amino acids, and chiral amines containing primary amine functions catalyze direct asymmetric intermolecular aldol reactions with high enantioselectivities. Moreover, the amino acids can be combined into highly modular natural and unusual small peptides that also catalyze direct asymmetric intermolecular aldol reactions with high stereoselectivities, to furnish the corresponding aldol products with up to >99 % ee. Simple amino acids and small peptides can thus catalyze asymmetric aldol reactions with stereoselectivities matching those of natural enzymes that have evolved over billions of years. A small amount of water accelerates the asymmetric aldol reactions catalyzed by amino acids and small peptides, and also increases their stereoselectivities. Notably, small peptides and amino acid tetrazoles were able to catalyze direct asymmetric aldol reactions with high enantioselectivities in water, while the parent amino acids, in stark contrast, furnished nearly racemic products. These results suggest that the prebiotic oligomerization of amino acids to peptides may plausibly have been a link in the evolution of the homochirality of sugars. The mechanism and stereochemistry of the reactions are also discussed.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16637082?dopt=AbstractPlus
Again, the author is in over his head claiming things are “not possible”.
It is often argued that we can detect design directly without knowing anything about the designer. Paley's watch, for example.
But we detect artifacts made by humans by knowing something about humans and having examples of things we have observed humans making.
We also have examples of things made via evolution. Granted they are rather small things -- antibiotic resistance or nylon metabolism, for example. But we do have one guiding principle for things made via the agency of variation and descent: things related by common descent must have genomes that form a nested hierarchy.
But for the last couple of decades we have been accumulating examples of living thing known to be designed by humans. We have quite a few food crops that have been engineered by humans. We even have industrial bacteria that have been engineered, for example to produce human insulin.
The distinctive characteristic feature of living things whose history we know for certain, and which have been designed by humans, is that their genomes do not fit the nested hierarchy. In other words, we can separate living things into two categories: those that could have arisen via incremental change and those that could not not have arisen via incremental change.
I have to admit, I’m rather taken aback by the conspicuous silence on this thread. Let’s just say, my confidence in Williams argument is growing!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.