Life's Irreducible Structure (DEBATE THREAD)

CMI ^ | Alex Williams

[GodGunsGuts]

Better late than never! Welcome aboard :o)

[metmom]

If there had to be an Intelligent Designer, who designed the Intelligent Designer? Does anyone think about who or what created God?

That's irrelevant even though it could be answered.

Science doesn't go back any further than singularity and is willing to stop there. Why would they demand evidence and require answers to questions from IDers that they won't answer themselves about singularity, for example?

[count-your-change]

Frame of reference:
Sun, The earth rotates around the sun.
Earth. The sun rotates around the earth.
Elsewhere. The two might look like they're doing a waltz.
(Mr. Einstein says so)

“His claims have been refuted by science over and over, but he still refuses to concede that he was wrong.”

We'll put the hot irons of scientific truth to his peds till he confesses and bends his knee to Bill Nye, The Science Guy!

[LeGrande]

Show me the evidence that the article provides to support ID. I didn’t see any.

[CottShop]

[[We also have examples of things made via evolution. Granted they are rather small things — antibiotic resistance or nylon metabolism, for example.]]

you are asserting what here? Microevolution? Certainly you know these are not examples of Macroeovlution?

[[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 you will not accept that it could also be common design?

[[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.]]

“Could have’” What evidnece supports ‘could have”? None that I know of- Macroevolution is still a biological, chemical, mathematical and natural entropy violating impossibility. It’s a far stretch, and unreasonable stretch at that to suggest somethign ‘could have’ arisen naturally via common descent. Anyone of htose impossibilites renders it unreasonable, but they all MUST be taken into concideration when discussing Megaevolution because Megaevolution posits that we need not take these things into concideration simply because of a VERY remote ‘could have’ chance- which flies i nthe face of the word impossible, for which htere are several serioous impossibilites facing Megaevolution.

[[It is often argued that we can detect design directly without knowing anything about the designer. Paley’s watch, for example.]]

Yes it is, and it’s also assumed that we can argue away design any way we like, whether hte artguments be reasonable, biologically possible or not. While one can mount an argument that even a watch can’t be a definate proof of a designer, by claiming natural forces somehow managed to form al lthe necessary parts, and some events caused them to self-aseemble themselves, thus ‘givign hte appearance of design’, these areguments woudl be silyl and unreasonavble- Them ore important point ot make is that hte arguments for Design present evidnece that is BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

[CottShop]

[[Then why can’t you cite the evidence?]]

You can read hte paper yourself- I’m not goign to hold your hand htrough this all

[[What is the difference between a creator and an intelligent causation? ]]

Some feel it is nature that somehow managed the itnellgience- But ID presents enough evidence that hsows nature is not capable- this paper we’re discussing beign a prime example

[metmom]

See post 53. No creator needed.

Then please provide the mechanism by which life arose spontaneously.

[CottShop]

[[Please define “kind”.]]

cacoethes_resipisco you are deviating form the article with arguemnts that have been presented here and answered many many times before- Baraminology defines KINDs just fine- go and seek!

[cacoethes_resipisco]

> Williams is talking about naturalistic experiments, not
> intelligently designed experiments designed to produce
> homochirality.

So was the paper I mentioned. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16637082?dopt=AbstractPlus

The investigators were looking at known and suspected ingredients of the postulated prebiotic soup and looking for reactions that would produce homochirality, which (according to Williams) never happens. He’s wrong.

Here’s another example: Plausible origins of homochirality in the amino acid catalyzed neogenesis of carbohydrates.Córdova A, Engqvist M, Ibrahem I, Casas J, Sundén H.
Department of Organic Chemistry, Arrhenius Laboratory, Stockholm University, Sweden. acordova1a@netscape.net

The intrinsic ability of amino acids to catalyze the asymmetric formation of carbohydrates, which enzymes have mediated for millions of years, with significant amplification of enantiomeric excess suggests a plausible ancient catalytic process for the evolution of homochirality.

PMID: 15834501 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15834501?dopt=AbstractPlus

[js1138]

Wallace’s paper on evolution — the one that preceeded Darwin’s “Origin” — was titled, “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type.”

In other words, macroevolution. Proposed independently of Darwin and prior to Darwin’s publication.

What mechanism have you observed that prevents varieties from departing indefinitely from the original type?

[LeGrande]

Force is mass TIMES ACCELERATION, you left out the meat in meat and potatoes.

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.

Cause and effect is the conclusion of observation and test.

What is the 'cause' of Energy? There is no 'cause.'

waves are particles

As was stated earlier, it depends on the instrument measuring, measure for waves, you get waves, etc.

Yes like measuring height vs width. You are measuring different aspects of the same thing.

Now, let's get back to the debate, shall we?

Certainly, now that you agree that there is no scientific law of cause and effect.

[LeGrande]

For now, try to stick to the topic of this thread.

Did you know that is a form of lying? Projecting onto someone else your own failings?

[js1138]

Why is that than when men — presumably formed in God’s image — design living things, they depart from the pattern formed by all living things prior to the invention of genetic engineering?

Why are living things — except for things known to be designed — consistent with incremental change?

Why is it easy to spot things that we know by observation to be engineered? In ten thousand years it will be easy to sort living things into those that were engineered after 1980, and those that could have arisen by incremental change.

[LeGrande]

But stuff isn’t proved, it’s disproved. That’s the standards science has set.

That is correct. The trick is finding a hypothesis that agrees with all of the evidence.

So if science wants to disprove that God created the universe, the earth, and life, go ahead.

I have already done that.

[cacoethes_resipisco]

Baraminology? Can you study that at CalTech or MIT?

In any case, since you want to discuss “irreducible complexity”, here is an interesting and brand, spanking new tidbit.

First Examples Of RNA That Replicates Itself Indefinitely Developed By Scripps Scientists
Main Category: Genetics
Also Included In: Biology / Biochemistry
Article Date: 12 Jan 2009 - 0:00 PST

Now, a pair of Scripps Research Institute scientists has taken a significant step toward answering that question. The scientists have synthesized for the first time RNA enzymes that can replicate themselves without the help of any proteins or other cellular components, and the process proceeds indefinitely.

The work was published on in Science Express, the advanced, online edition of the journal Science...

“This is the only case outside biology where molecular information has been immortalized,” says Joyce...

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/135031.php

So, is it now RNA synthesis that is “irreducibly complex”?

[CottShop]

[[What mechanism have you observed that prevents varieties from departing indefinitely from the original type?]]

You know htere are many mechanisms- one being discussed right in the paper we are discussing- Entropy is one, them ore you add corruption, the less viable the species becomes, another is pecies designed genetic paremters which prevent it, and biology itself argues very strongly against it- to the point of impossibility.

[[In other words, macroevolution.]]

NOT ‘in other words’- There is NO evidence that they ‘depart’ from an original kind, there IS however evidence that they are hte same kind of lesser viability thanks to degredation of the genome due to myriad mutations-

[metmom]

“But it’s not science” crowd.

I figured someone would be along to say that what is going on here isn’t science. I was just trying to guess how many posts that would take.

[CottShop]

cacoethes_resipisco- Coyoteman ALSO posted that deceitful article, and it was thoroughly refuted- ALL Joyce managed to do was INTELLIGENTLY DESIGN AND CONTROL the experiment to produce a desired outcome- it was a fine example of MICROEVOLUTION resulting from an INTYELIIGENTLY DESIGNED experiment- nothign more- Again- Are you goign to discuss the paper we’re discussing or not?

[metmom]

That’s not an answer.

[editor-surveyor]

Obviously you are in at least a mile above your approved depth!