Using Engineering to Prove Evolution (why does this sound like intelligent design?)

CEH ^ | March 3, 2009

[GodGunsGuts]

Using Engineering to Prove Evolution   

March 3, 2009 — David Deamer smiling at a tide pool: is there an evolutionary connection?  The picture accompanies an article on Science Daily about Deamer’s latest thinking on the origin of life.  He’s going to share his ideas at a symposium in Oakland, California, organized by Eugenie Scott of the NCSE.

According to Deamer, life began with complex systems of molecules that came together through the self-assembly of nonliving components.  A useful metaphor for understanding how this came about, he said, can be found in combinatorial chemistry, an approach in which thousands of experiments are carried out in parallel by robotic devices.

But, one asks, where are the robots in the ancient primordial soup?  Who designed the experiments? ...

[GodGunsGuts]

ping!

[MrB]

Saw a panel cartoon once that showed a very complex lab setup that was used to “prove” evolution was possible.

[Nathan Zachary]

It’s another variation of the old “throw a bunch of nuts and bolts, steel and aluminum (even though processed nuts bolts steel and aluminum is cheating) in the air and it comes back down a fully funtional F18A fighter jet.

[MyTwoCopperCoins]

Yes, if you ignore the fact that evolution occurs in incremental, successive, additive steps, and the mechanics of amino acid polymerization.

Not to mention, that at the molecular level, those “nuts and bolts” exhibit a whole new spectrum of behavior, and are influenced much more dramatically by external fields and forces.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Bringbackthedraft]

Most of the planet’s humans seek a simple answers to the most complex problems (questions)? The simplest way to explain anything is usually the accepted one even though it leaves much unexplained. i.e. “Why are we here?” There is a simple answer and there is a long drawn out continuing quest for that answer. They say we are only at only 5% of our brain compacity, when and if we get to the 95% stage maybe the answers will be there. At the moment much is beyond our comprehension. Unless you are doing the actual research how can we comment on whether or not the findings are inaccurate? There are so many experts that know so much and yet they are not in the field of research.

The future holds many wondrous things but those of us living today will not see them. It will be the future generations, if mankind manages to survive, who will research,find more answers, discover, and go where man has never gone before. Life is too short.

[count-your-change]

The article from Science Daily is simply story telling, a statement treated as fact and then built upon with further speculation that assumes support from the first statement.

An example:

“The first forms of life did not evolve in the usual sense, he said, but simply grew. “Evolution began when large populations of cells had variations that led to different metabolic efficiencies,” Deamer said. “If the populations were in a confined environment, at some point they would begin to compete for limited resources.”

Statement, life simply grew...assumption, evolution began..speculation, if in a confined environment...statement, at some point they would compete.

Do I detect something missing here? Say evidence?

[Notary Sojac]

There is nothing on Earth which necessarily rules out the possibility of an intelligent designer.

However, the evidence is clear that any possible design process took place over several billion years and involved a lot of false starts and dead ends.