|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Foundations of ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Very well. Every man deserves a chance to keep his word. Now, to help me hone in on what it is you're asking of me, would you please cut and paste from my posts (either the one you linked to or others) where I talked about building a chemical model based on mathematics to show design? Quite frankly, I reread the post you linked to and still did not find anything in there I can interpret as what you're asking. I want to comply with your questions, but I need to understand what those questions are. If you will cut and paste, I'll do my best. Thank you Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: They are now that you are not talking about mathematical models and other vague concepts I never mentioned. Wouldn't that throw about anyone? If this is all you're talking about, I can answer your questions. The gist of your question seems to lie in this statement: Jerry: "And don't forget Gibb's free energy and how that forbids the complex organic molecules we are discussing from forming spontaneously. We need stay in science and out of pseudo-science. You have the second law of thermodynamics working against you and you will lose every time when that happens."
quote: Now I will address it: I get my numbers from past research and the literature, of course, and this is fairly old science. And remember what the subject was, the polymerization of proteins from amino acids of the type that comprise organisms. This occurs through condensation reactions. Also as I have preciously stated, it is not difficult to calculate enthalpy change as dipeptides form from amino acids. This has been done by Hutchens [1] and is shown to be 5-8 kcal/mole. Obviously, work has to be done on this system for a polypeptide to form and in organisms, this work is provided by the organism. But since we are talking about pre-biotic conditions, where did this work come from? Further, in a more generalized form, Morowitz [2] has estimated that the chemical work (average increase in enthalpy) for macromolecular formation in living systems is 16.4 cal/gm. At another place in that same book he states that the average increase in bonding energy in going from simple compounds to an E. coli bacterium is 0.27 ev/atom. Work must be performed on these systems in order that more complex molecules can form to support life. This is just common sense to one who has studied chemistry. They do not form by Darwinian magic. [1] John 0. Hutchens, 1976. Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 3rd ed., Physical and Chemical Data, Gerald D. Fasman. Cleveland: CRC Press. [2] H. Morowitz, 1968. Energy Flow in Biology. New York: Academic Press, p.79. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Guys, now I'm sorry I brought up bat wings, lol. I was not using them in an evolutionary argument. I just stated that if I were a designer, I think I would be smart enough not to reinvent the hub cap for every new car I designed. If wings will work for flight with birds, they will also work for bats, bumble bees and house flies. That's all I was pointing out. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: They have. Think of Miller for one.
quote: No, science never proves anything therefore no one schooled in science ever KNOWS anything. We just lean toward conclusions. Boil this down to the simplicity it really is. Since the laws of chemistry are against chance formation of these complex molecules that make us up, what are the other possibilities, perhaps design by something? How credible would we be to consider this as an option? I mean it certainly works for weed eaters and tables.
quote: I didn't give any experiments that didn't work. They worked just fine and I was just sharing the results of them with you.
quote: Now. I'm an aggressive debater and I'm going to call this like it is, this doesn't mean I'm picking on you personally: Darwinian magic: Elephants magically 'poof' out of amoebas; ape-like critters start giving birth to men in violation of the species definitions in science; pakicetus carves his legs into flippers, poofs up to a giant 100 times as big as he was, bellies off into the ocean and morphs into a whale; reptiloid therapsids supernaturally shove their jaw-bones up into their ears and shoot etherally into mammals. Designer magic: I do understand that some may view quantum mechanics as magic, but I can assure you it is really science.
quote: Occam shaves for my side, I'm afraid. Begin with an amoeba, end at a man (if you like), use the process described above in the Darwinian magic paragraph, spell out those poofs a couple of billion times as we consider all the speciations it would have taken to get men from amoebas. A rather complicated scenario, don't you think? Which is simpler, all of that, or that a designer designed man pretty much as he is today? Occam's razor says pick the simplest option and you will be right 83% of the time.
quote: Like what? If this is credible you are going to have to come up with some scenarios that could form a homochiral protein from amino acids. If you can't, it's just a daydream.
quote: True in that case but it's not the same concept. La Chateliers principle is a law of chemistry that forbids the type of reactions we were discussing. What do you think could have happened in nature to overcome both this principle and the second law of thermodynamics?
quote: Well, if you want to consider probability math as a model, I suppose you can. We just use the term differently. Edited for clarity This message has been edited by Jerry Don Bauer, 05-11-2005 07:53 AM Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Not one I can think of. Can you? What environment could possible cause homochiral proteins to form our of a racemic mixture of amino acids against the laws of chemistry?
quote: No, I'll even give you a concentrated flask of racemic amino acids. You still cannot form life out of that or come up with any credible scenario of some way it can happen. This would be just pipe-dreaming, wouldn't it?
quote: No, it's not useless at all because this is not the same thing. At some point some work guided by intelligence is going to have to come into the picture to separate all the Ls from the Ds in order that only L polypeptides can form from them. There is no environment one can conceive without intelligence in it to cause this.
quote: No. Nor would I because this is irrelevant to the discussion. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Ahhh....but I did not say how quickly they 'poofed,' now did I. But Darwinism does propose a 'poof' here and there. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I suppose one could pick one of several billion speciations, each or at least most more complex than its predecessor species over a massive period of time. Isn't that poofs? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: You are just going to have to start naming these conditions. I'm afraid your insistence there ARE conditions is not a very strong argument. What are they?
quote: You seem to be repeating yourself. There are no conditions where the probabilities are heightened. What would those be? You guys seem to want to ignore the obvious here.
quote: No. Just design.
quote: And you think that is a simpler concept than just suggesting the organism was designed?
quote: He would? How did you ask him this?
quote: What on earth are you saying here, Holmes? What is a man-like thing, maybe a hominid?
quote: There is no word in science called impossible. Nor do we base theories on unknowns. We have to go with what seems likely.
quote: Oh, it leaves a trace all the time. Virtual particles form from zero-point energy back and forth all the time. But quantum mechanics were formed in the big bang along with the rest of our universe. I don't think anyone is sure yet what caused the big bang unless you know something I do not.
quote: Well sheeze....I assumed you knew what I was talking about because I have covered it in great detail HERE. In fact, that post was to you. You cannot name any conditions that would overcome Le Chatlier's principle, can you? If you can, what are they?
quote:NO, this is not correct. 2LOT applies to open, closed and isolated systems. quote: Now, I thought we covered this; are we going back to models again? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: What? I'm not aware of any chemists working on something they think goes against the laws of chemistry. They would be rather silly, wouldn't they, since they discovered those laws themselves? All I did was show how those reactions occur. If you guys disagree with me, then please show how I am wrong. I'm doing science and you guys are coming back with little more than supposition.
quote: Again, I'm just quoting science. I would have no idea how to rebut your email analogy.
quote: No, I'm just pointing out what the evidence shows to be likely and what the evidence shows to be unlikely. You can deal with it however you choose. You can even put blinders on and refuse to look at it at all if you choose. In fact, I support your freedom to do exactly that.
quote: You want papers on high school chemistry? I would have no idea on how to search for those. I can recommend some chem books to you, I suppose.
quote: Yeah, but since that in itself is magic, don't you think poof sounds much better?
quote: No, not RM and NS. There is nothing in those minor changes that could explain an elephant p......coming out of an amoeba. What environmental changes do you ever think could cause that sort of massive change? I have never heard a Darwinist even explain one stark speciation of one vertebrate to another, much less, this.
quote: What do you mean every single environment? Where are these environments, on earth? You guys won't even explain what you mean by this. We have no unknown environments I'm aware of to even consider. Either early earth was a reducing atmosphere or it was not. Other than proposing a fairy tale environment with little green elves poking things into stem cells or something, I would have no idea how to take this any further. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Ooook! So I finally get to you.
quote: But they only confirm them circularly. I'm just pointing out how your detractors view this. And what tests are there for me to do? Researchers don't have DNA going back near far enough to explain the diversity of the fossil record or common descent. If I recall there is only a piddling of mitochondrial DNA dating back about 60,000 years or so. This is not good as this leaves one to speculate a whole bunch on these charts. Science is not supposed to speculate, is it? I don't know anything about YECs, but I would know of no tests that could confirm or falsify that man and bird came from separate origins. Herein lies the problem of Neo-Darwinism. There ARE no possible tests.
quote: Well, if it is important to you to label me a creationist you certainly have my permission, but I am not one. Creationists study creations and Creators usually mixed in with a healthy dose of Genesis. We study only science under the scientific method. There are some similarities, I suppose in that we both see events in the fossil record. You see the Cambrian explosion in there too, don't you? Or do you just ignore it and hope it will go away?
quote: Then I want to be YOUR duck. From this point on I want you to call me Jerry the Creationist. That is something you want and it will make your day and to me this is very important.
quote: Ahh...Probably about 4.6 billion years or so. Do you believe this? If so does this make you an old earth creationist? Think about it because they believe this too.
quote: Um...thanks. I was really beginning to wonder if we would ever have a chance to discuss any science. You do seem rather well entrenched in religion.
quote: Surely you are familiar with an analogy. They work pretty good in logical argument. So again I ask you. Can you refute the 747 argument? Can you show how a tornado could sweep through a lumber yard and build a house? I mean if you cannot, then they seem like pretty good analogies to me to use to make points about spontaneous complexity.
quote: Again, your point seems to be going *swoosh*--Aren't Cadillacs and kidneys both made of atoms? How do YOU distinguish between dead matter and live matter. Can you tell me the difference in a dermal cell on a dog's paw one second before the death of the organism as opposed to one second after death? What IS life anyhow, Ooook?
quote: Obvious to you, I would suppose, but certainly not to me. Where is your experimental evidence to support this? How can this be falsified, and if neither of these apply, then what gives you the right to call this science?
quote: What if the designer were quantum mechanics. That's who molecular design engineers consider the designer as. So if we don't know anything about the designer, then why surmise on its methodologies? Aren't we really both just blowing smoke here?
quote: When did I say that? When did I begin answering every question with a question? Ahem...you just asked me if I could calculate something and I said yes if you'll tell me the details. I cannot if you won't tell what it is you wish for me to calculate. But we HAVE defined what complexity in organisms is and calculate this every day. No biggie.
quote: Nope. Wrong.
quote:Yep. quote: LOL...I don't know. I don't see a need for one in that situation. Why do you?
quote: Show me this mathematically. I think it will take this for you to understand it.
quote: Yep. And I would say welcome to the world of intelligent design because this is exactly what we think happened.
quote: Not true. Genes translate proteins. Each codon will encode for a particular amino acid and when that gene mutates, a different amino acid will form. This means that the protein will fold with a different conformational entropy in that in many cases it now is not suitable to do the job the old one did. Either that protein does the job or it does not,
quote: I give, what?
quote: I don't see how QM would have anything to do with evolution.
quote: LOL....Ain't THAT the truth. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
You misunderstand what the argument from analogy is:
Frankenstein is not very smart.The candidate for mayor looks like Frankenstein. Therefore, the candidate for mayor is not very smart. That is a demonstration of the fallacy in action. As you can see, it has not a thing to do with what I was discussing with Ooook. You would change the very fabric of modern life if you denied everyone from using analogy to communicate. Teachers use this every day in communicating a concept to students.
quote: Horse hocky. In fact, if one accurately reproduces the situation then it is no longer an analogy. You don't seem to understand what an analogy is: Analogy: "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar." Analogy Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: Nonsense. You've never heard the term take a flying f**k? Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Um...it's not supposed to look like the subject under discussion. Then it wouldn't be an analogy. LOL....You are cracking me up dude. Post to someone a little more on your level. Leave me alone, you are trolling me. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: Ahhh.....Did you know that if you guys could come together admitting that this is a historical, inferred science and not a science based on empirical experimentation, much less something BEYOND a theory of science even to the level as to be FACTS of science setting Darwinism as above the other theories that your problems might dissipate? Many Darwinists (picture Eugenie Scott) simply do not tell the truth. The public is on to this and wouldn't trust her any further than they could throw her on ANYTHING in science.
quote: Not necessarily. It would depend on our approach. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
quote: I thought about that. I think maybe that above it all IDists are in general agreement that naturalists do not take an honest approach to science. It's almost that they see things they want to see in science and draw unwarranted conclusions where a science purest would just never draw a conclusion at all. One could even begin to question if there could be some religious motivation in that. I liked Ooooks very honest statement to me. I think he probably is a scientist as his words are fairly wise. He mentioned something and compared it as being: "Similar to the Atheist/Agnostic Agenda you get handed once you start researching evolutionary biology." That is a right-on statement, but why is it that when one begins researching evolutionary biology they must agree to be fed an atheist/agnostic agenda? I feel this is because atheists and agnostics have taken over academia and we need look no further than the National Academy of Science to see why. "When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticism." Page not found - American Atheists The NAS is not representative of real people at all. 93% of them are atheists or agnostics. There I think we find why they cannot look at science as science. They must use their science to push a religionist agenda. ID wants science to be science again. No religion anywhere in it. Just science, and there may be the difference in our approach. Design Dynamics
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jerry Don Bauer Inactive Member |
Ok. Thank you for your posts! I am out of here people, as I think I have had made my case. If any of you care to take the discussion further, you can easily find me at my home page linked at the bottom of each of my posts.
To those readers who perhaps lean toward ID or are even neutral that have been following these posts closely, it is easy to see the bias on this forum and why I am not welcome, nor is anyone else who can actually argue the ID issue actually welcome here. (Follow Nitwit Ned's posts to me, lol) Among my points: 1) ID has been directly tied into science. One example of this is the work of English physician William Harvey, considered by many to have laid the foundation for modern medicine. Harvey was the first to demonstrate the function of the heart and the circulation of the blood based on his conception it was designed and 'here is how I would have designed it, had I been the designer'. Scientists Robert Boyle and Newton used teleological technique similarly. 2) There is no such thing as an ID biology, ID chemistry or an ID physics. We study science just as anyone else does using the methodological naturalism inherent in the scientific method. It does not make anymore sense to ask to see scientific papers on ID than it does to demand to see scientific papers on dualism. There is no such thing as ID research because we research biology just as other biologists do. 3) I pointed out that most of the science we use today in the lab was brought to that lab by teleologists, many of them Christian creationists. These creationists consist of such notable scientists as Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Harvey, Boyle, Pasteur and Newton. 4) I have noted that ID has not a thing to do with "gods" and have shown this concept to go back at least 300 years before Christ to the great debates of ancient Greece. Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Diogenes, were just a few philosophers to see design in certain systems. Socrates (who held no beliefs of a personal god as none of them did) once commented: "Is not that providence, Aristodemus, in a most eminent manner conspicuous, which because the eye of man is delicate in its contexture, hath therefore prepared eyelids like doors, whereby to screen it, which extend themselves whenever it is needful, and again close when sleep approaches?And cans't thou still doubt Aristodemus, whether a disposition of parts like this should be the work of chance, or of wisdom and contrivance?" 5) I introduced the work of Ludvig Boltzmann who formulated the formula S = K log W, where S is the entropy of a given system, K is Boltzmann’s constant, 1.38 x 10^-23, and W is the total number of possible microstates in a given system. Although S here can certainly be used to quantify the states of energy, it can also be used to quantify the states of matter. In fact, this was what Boltzmann designed the formula to do. He was an atomist (rare in his day) and developed the formula to show the entropy of the arrangement of atoms (matter) in a gas. It would be Max Planck who would later tie this formula into energy. 6) A genome works at its "best" when it is new and right after initial design just as in the design of an automobile--this is when geneA translates ProteinA perfectly--consisting of the right amino acids in the right sequence where it will fold with the right conformational entropy to be a cause of the effects that govern the organism at its maximum efficiency. Deleterious mutations encode for different proteins than the original gene and the genome deteriorates when this happens because the new translated protein may not be able to do what the old translated protein did. Since harmful mutations destroy useful information in the genome, mutational meltdown is sometimes the result of this. Thus, we can view this phenomenon as maximum information degrading to the point where information = 0. 7) I pointed out that Darwin's notion of macroevolution is in direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics in that: Mathematically, S represents entropy and 2LOT states as a tendency that spontaneous events yield S2 > S1. But Darwin was a science flunk-out and he was so silly as to assert that with spontaneous speciations the tendency is bass ackwards: S2 < S1. 8) I then detailed WHY Darwin was wrong and introduced a testable hypothesis unique to ID: As loose information is diffused, information entropy will tend to increase unless energy, guided by intelligence, is added into the system to stabilize it. In other words, since genes are loose information (information that is not "fixed" in a manner it cannot change as it diffuses, like a library book or video tape) we do not expect to see macroevolution via increasing information content due to random mutations in a population of organisms over time as Darwin asserted. In fact, we would expect to see just the opposite: a devolving genome by the increase of harmful mutations and that species headed toward extinction as we have observed 98% of the species doing in the fossil record. 9) I then introduced a paper from Nature by evolutionary biologists Eyre-Walker and Keightley showing a study where the human genome has done exactly this over a period of about 6 million years. The genome has deteriorated at the rate of 1.6 accumulating deleterious mutation each generation. 10) I then introduced the mathematics to show this deterioration of the human genome in order to quantify it: I began by throwing out a formula from The University of New South Wales, physics department:
This states that W will equal a factorial relationship of the differences of what we are considering (accumulating deleteriously mutated genes as opposed to the rest of the genome) or W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! ~ (So let's just calculate our weight and then we can go to Boltzmann's math to calculate entropy. W = (41469.4 + 1.6)! / (41469.4)!(1.6)! --- 3.66 x 10^173494 / 2.14 x 10^173487 W = 1.71 x 10^7 Now we can do Boltzmann's math: S = K log W, S = (1.38 x 10^-23) log(1.71 x 10^7) S = 9.98 x 10^-23 There is more than one way to skin a cat, of course. I can stick joules and degrees Kelvin in Boltzmann's formula for the math purest, but most no longer do this. This math shows the macroevolution inherent in Darwinism standing refuted both scientifically (the study) and mathematically because our final calculation shows increasing entropy in the human genome and therefore disorganization in that genome for the last 6 million years. There is no evidence it has been any different in the annals of human history. 11) Additionally, I discussed CSI (complex specified information and showed how to calculate it and introduced another tenet unique to ID: Specified information is inversely proportional to the probability of an event occurring.
Once the specificity reaches 1 chance in 10^150, or 500 bits if expressed in information content, it is simply impossible that nature could have caused the event. Finally, I introduced positive evidence of ID not one tenet of which was refuted. Now this forum can go right back to their intellectual discussions of ID without one IDist on here to actually refute anything. Cool. Catch you on the flip-flop! Jerry Design Dynamics
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024