[gore3000]

Even though this argument is only tangentially related to evolution

I did not say it was. This was regarding the issue of abiogenesis and the claim by some atheists here that matter can self assemble and thus create life.

We have seen the mechanism of self-assembly.

Only in living things. And they do not really self assemble anyway. They follow the program set out by the parents. G3K: "The DNA in the simplest organism however, the arrangement of it is not only not due to any natural forces, but it cannot be due to it. Otherwise we would not be able to find all the possible ways in which 3 different bit pairs with 3 possible values (64 in all) appear in the DNA sequences of all species. Such self assembly is totally unknown anywhere in the natural world. For anything even close, one must go and look at humanly designed things."

First, DNA is not an organism.

Seems you need some reading comprehension classes. I did not say that, I said ""The DNA in the simplest organism ". Kindly read what was said before you attempt to refute.

Second, there is no need for anyone to "find all the possible ways" to make a certain sequence to exist in all species. In fact, with evolution you would expect to find common sequences among organisms with common ancestors.

Continuing to discuss what is not being discussed and to create confusion. The post is about abiogenesis. It is pretty clear from the post what it is about. You are attempting to refute something to which the post does not apply.

For bookkeeping purposes, we're still waiting for your definition for what passes as self assembly since you've rejected so many examples.

Actually I made it quite clear in the post you responded to. Inert matter assembling itself together to produce a complex system which is not created by known natural forces. Which indeed could not have been created by known natural forces such as chemical reactions, nucler reactions, wind, etc. This is what had to have happened for DNA to self assemble to create a living thing. Materialists cannot provide an example of anything even a thousand times simpler assembling itself in such a manner. The reason is that matter cannot self-assemble itself in complex ways. Only intelligent designers can assemble matter in ways which have nothing to do with naturally known forces.

[donh]

Actually I made it quite clear in the post you responded to. Inert matter assembling itself together to produce a complex system which is not created by known natural forces. Which indeed could not have been created by known natural forces such as chemical reactions, nucler reactions, wind, etc. This is what had to have happened for DNA to self assemble to create a living thing. Materialists cannot provide an example of anything even a thousand times simpler assembling itself in such a manner. The reason is that matter cannot self-assemble itself in complex ways. Only intelligent designers can assemble matter in ways which have nothing to do with naturally known forces.

Yet another law of nature invented at the Gore3000 Academy of Sciences.

The Solar system does not strike you as a regularly constrained, complex assembly of matter displaying marked regularities of behavior? You're not the teesiest bit thrown off of this thesis by the fact that the matter in the universe is mostly confined to a few pinpoints of stars? And you think this compares unfavorably to an acidophilis bacteria in complexity, constrained interactivity and morphological regularity?

This is what had to have happened for DNA to self assemble to create a living thing.

Which is, of course, why no such thing ever likely happened. Something else assembled DNA. As is presently the case--RNA machinery assembles DNA.

[freeper4u]

G3K: "Only in living things. And they do not really self assemble anyway. They follow the program set out by the parents."

Lets see how much of a creationist/evolutionist you are. Since the topic has branched into three parts, I want you to answer with an honest yes or no to each independant argument...

1) The first self-replicating machinery arose due to natural chemcial processes and without the guidance of an intelligent entity.

2) Once the first self-replicating machine was in place, the execution of that machinery required no outside intelligent agent.

3) The improvement of that machinery with respect to its environment occurred by solely by natural evolution.

Do you believe that outside intelligence is required for all three steps? My guess is that you would say No to #1 and #3 -- but will at least concede that there are no little invisible angles moving molecules around once all the machinery needed to execute are in place -- hence "self assembly".

--

freeper4u: "Second, there is no need for anyone to "find all the possible ways" to make a certain sequence to exist in all species. In fact, with evolution you would expect to find common sequences among organisms with common ancestors."

G3K: "Continuing to discuss what is not being discussed and to create confusion. The post is about abiogenesis. It is pretty clear from the post what it is about. You are attempting to refute something to which the post does not apply."

I must have misunderstood the point you were trying to make. Please restate or explain why you think our ability "to find all the possible ways in which 3 different bit pairs... appear in the DNA sequence of all species" proves that "the arrangement [of DNA]" "cannot be due to [natural forces]" and I'd be happy to try again.

--

Bookkeeping: Still waiting for reasons why sexual reproduction prohibits speciation.