Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 181 of 638 (725018)
04-23-2014 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by New Cat's Eye
04-23-2014 12:22 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
CS writes:
Its just chemistry.
It doesn't look very alive to me...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2014 12:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2014 12:49 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 638 (725019)
04-23-2014 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Ed67
04-23-2014 12:43 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
It doesn't look very alive to me...
DNA isn't alive either. Its just chemicals. No less than the calcium in your bones is just a metal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 12:43 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 183 of 638 (725022)
04-23-2014 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by ringo
04-23-2014 11:48 AM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
ringo writes:
What I said was, "It could be said that life is just a byproduct of DNA's natural chemistry." Message 160 This is a science-oriented forum and we appreciate rigor, especially when it comes to quotes.
Sorry for the missing ellipsis. It doesn't change the meaning of the quote.
ringo writes:
Ed67 writes:
What makes you think that? That's what Francis Crick hypothesized and disproved in the fifties, isn't it?
I'm not awae that he disproved any such thing. Please explain.
Ok, thanks for asking. Are you aware of the basic course of research that Crick engaged in after finalizing the initial discovery of the double helix?
I have to go hunting for my sources on it, so I'll be a while. I don't want to just go spouting off on my own (nonexistent) authority, but I thought this finding of crick's was quite common knowledge for anyone interested in the history of science.
If so, it won't take me long to find a source... bear with me please.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 04-23-2014 11:48 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by ringo, posted 04-23-2014 2:01 PM Ed67 has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 184 of 638 (725024)
04-23-2014 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 174 by Ed67
04-23-2014 10:30 AM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
Like any recipe, this one had to have an intelligent source, as it was 'written' some time BEFORE life started. Evolution could not have an effect until life began as a whole phenomenon.
Yea we know evolution coulden't have an effect before life started. And this recepie did not need an intelligent source all it needed was a simple replicating molecule or should we call that molecule alive. It dint need to be as large as ours, a membrane, and all the neat little dohickeys cells now have all it needed to do was replicate imperfectly. 3 billion years later woalla human beings working it all out.
Now i know you could say well it dint need an intelegent creator but there could have been one, well yes for all we know an ailen spaceship dumped its sewage on this planet as it was passing by. And life on the planet evolved from that. We just dont know how life started we only know how it got to the stage its at now from simple beginnings.
That's exactly true. You are getting to the point. Now the next question:
How did the DNA/RNA NANOBOT come to be 'constructed' so that it could CONTAIN, TRANSMIT AND INTERPRET the instructions to make functional proteins necessary for an organism to live?
This is how it could have happened. This first self replicating molecule just interacts with the stuff arround it and copies itself inperfectly mistakes are made and one day one mistake makes the molecule attract lipids to itself, Lipids have a natural tendency to clump together to form spherical structures. If the molecule attracted them it would be protected from harmfull solar radiation, taking a longer time for it to decay under solar radiation, allowing it to make more copies of itself. Is the molecule now alive because it has a membrane?
But no we cant prove this is how life started on earth and we probably never will unless someone invents a TARDIS. but we do not need to invoke gods evil spierits, and or daemons to come to a possible answer because there are more realistic answers to be explored first.
P.s.
What instructions as i said it needs no instructions it just follows the laws of chemestry?
And RNA needs no proteins to replicate itself.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 174 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 10:30 AM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 1:55 PM frako has replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 185 of 638 (725028)
04-23-2014 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by ringo
04-23-2014 11:48 AM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
ringo writes:
I'm not awae that he disproved any such thing. Please explain.
Well, here's the mention of the kind of research he was engaged in:
quote:
Crick then concentrated on the biological implications of the structure of the DNA molecule, developing further insights into the genetic code − including the so called 'central dogma' explaining the flow of information from DNA to RNA to protein.
About Dr Francis Crick | Crick
I'll update this post as I find more information...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by ringo, posted 04-23-2014 11:48 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 186 of 638 (725032)
04-23-2014 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by frako
04-23-2014 1:20 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
frako writes:
Yea we know evolution coulden't have an effect before life started. And this recepie did not need an intelligent source all it needed was a simple replicating molecule or should we call that molecule alive.
Let me get this straight:
You claim that life didn't need an intelligent source to explain its existence. 'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE' to evolve from.
Darwinian logic at its best.
On top of that, you claim IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE that evolution can have nothing to do with the origin of life!
What a disingenuous load of hogwash! That's not even a bad argument, that's an embarrassment.
Shows to what lengths Darwinian propagandists are willing to go...
frako writes:
3 billion years later woalla human beings working it all out.
Darwinian wishful thinking (based on faith) at its best
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by frako, posted 04-23-2014 1:20 PM frako has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Tempe 12ft Chicken, posted 04-23-2014 2:10 PM Ed67 has replied
 Message 192 by frako, posted 04-23-2014 3:18 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 187 of 638 (725034)
04-23-2014 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Ed67
04-23-2014 1:09 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Ed67 writes:
Are you aware of the basic course of research that Crick engaged in after finalizing the initial discovery of the double helix?
I'm sure we're all interested in hearing your take on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 1:09 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:25 PM ringo has replied

  
Tempe 12ft Chicken
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 438
From: Tempe, Az.
Joined: 10-25-2012


(5)
Message 188 of 638 (725036)
04-23-2014 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Ed67
04-23-2014 1:55 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
Ed67 writes:
Let me get this straight:
You claim that life didn't need an intelligent source to explain its existence. 'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE' to evolve from.
Darwinian logic at its best.
On top of that, you claim IN THE PRECEDING SENTENCE that evolution can have nothing to do with the origin of life!
What a disingenuous load of hogwash! That's not even a bad argument, that's an embarrassment.
Shows to what lengths Darwinian propagandists are willing to go...
Maybe it was Frako's poor English that made you misunderstand him, but your laughter was directed at a strawman of the argument that he was making.
Initially he stated that obviously life must be present for evolution to happen. However, we could see just the RNA strand replicating itself based on laws of chemistry through chemical reactions. Frako, then stated "Or would we call that life?" He is pointing out that it becomes very murky water when it gets to the levels of life versus non-life in this scenario. It can replicate itself, but it is still simply a chemical molecule, doing what it must based upon the laws of chemistry. Would you consider something such as RNA just replicating itself but nothing else as life....or must it begin to build other proteins and code for actual processes before you would call it life?
Frako then goes on to mention how errors in the code through replication could allow the molecule to attract lipids, which could form the very basic structure of a cellular membrane, giving us the first cell. Again, still only using the laws of chemistry. Where the designation between life and non-life comes is a part of what scientists researching abiogenesis are looking for.
Finally, your laughter at an entirely plausible idea, simply because you could not understand his meaning (hence why you attributed several ideas ("'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE'") to Frako which he did not state) is not beneficial to academic discourse. Perhaps trying to get a better graso instead of relying on your own intellect would allow you to clarify before spouting off answers that do not apply and laughing at someone presenting a reasonable hypothesis to your very minimally fleshed out idea of a cosmic "intelligence"

The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 1:55 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:29 PM Tempe 12ft Chicken has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 189 of 638 (725042)
04-23-2014 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by ringo
04-23-2014 2:01 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
More on the topic of their research:
quote:
In 1953, Watson and Crick published another article in Nature which stated: "it therefore seems likely that the precise sequence of the bases is the CODE that carries the genetical information".[48]
Francis Crick - Wikipedia
They had the common sense to call a spade a spade, and a code a code.
...still looking for more details...
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.
Edited by Ed67, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by ringo, posted 04-23-2014 2:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-23-2014 2:32 PM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 04-23-2014 2:47 PM Ed67 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(5)
Message 190 of 638 (725043)
04-23-2014 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Ed67
04-23-2014 2:25 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Here's some other stuff from that page:
quote:
In the 1987 United States Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, Crick joined a group of other Nobel laureates who advised that, "'Creation-science' simply has no place in the public-school science classroom." Crick was also an advocate for the establishment of Darwin Day as a British national holiday.
quote:
Crick was especially critical of Christianity:
"I do not respect Christian beliefs. I think they are ridiculous. If we could get rid of them we could more easily get down to the serious problem of trying to find out what the world is all about."
Crick once joked, "Christianity may be OK between consenting adults in private but should not be taught to young children."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:25 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 191 of 638 (725047)
04-23-2014 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Ed67
04-23-2014 2:25 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Ed67 writes:
They had the common sense to call a spade a spade, and a code a code.
They called it a code. I have not disputed that it can be called a code. What I'm saying is that it is nothing beyond the structure of the molecule, nothing that every other molecule doesn't carry.
The point you're (supposedly) responding to is the idea that life is a byproduct of DNA's structure. You claimed in Message 161 that Crick disproved that. Show us the disproof.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 2:25 PM Ed67 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 7:10 PM ringo has replied
 Message 204 by Ed67, posted 04-24-2014 10:01 AM ringo has replied

  
frako
Member (Idle past 305 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(4)
Message 192 of 638 (725051)
04-23-2014 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by Ed67
04-23-2014 1:55 PM


Re: Is There a Legitimate Argument for Design?
You claim that life didn't need an intelligent source to explain its existence. 'all it needs', you seem to be saying, 'is a PRE-EXISTING simple form of LIFE' to evolve from.
So a strand of simple pre-RNA molecule is alive then cool, then by those standards so are salt crystals, there you go the origins of life answered.
Yea the answer to how life arose requires a definition of what life is. To me it has to furfill one property self replication with modification. Im one of those that categorises viruses as alive even though its only a strand of RNA
But yea i also told you we dont know how life arose evolution takes of once you have a self replicating molecule.
We know how most components of such a molecule could have arisen in the earth environment at that time, but not yet how they combined to form a self replicating molecule. but that is not what evolution deals with, evolution deals with what happens after you get that molecule. Sure you could push god in to that gap god made the first verry simple self replicating molecule, o praise the lord what a miracle we have been doing it for 60 years. Just a moment... go order some for yourself.
Darwinian wishful thinking (based on faith) at its best
Yea sure faith, its faith that tells us that the early erths atmosphere was made up of ater vapor, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, nitrogen, ammonia, and methane, not diligent sicence.
Its also faith that tells us that add lightning to this soup and you get simple amino acids, it wasnt experiments and testing and diligent work its faith.
now we know here is a gap in our knowlege ie you say god did it in how those aminoacids formed the first selfreplicating molecule.
But then there is no gap any more, the fossil record clearly shows how life evolved from simple life to complex life.
We should all just quit right now burn all books and works cause god did it is the simplest and best answer. Cause you know its completely logical god was there in the abstract time before time ie before the big bang, made it bang, then he waited 10 billion years for the earth to form, placed a self replicating molecule on it, waited 3,5 billion years, then send his son to appear in ancient Jerusalem, when the top form of storing knowledge was on scraps of paper, he took 12 fishermen who dint know how to write, as his students then he died for humanity's sins knowing that some 60 years later someone is bound to record his story on paper, and some 300 years later a few dozen people will gather all the writings and sort them out to form the bible. Praise the lord.

Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Ed67, posted 04-23-2014 1:55 PM Ed67 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by RAZD, posted 04-23-2014 6:27 PM frako has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 193 of 638 (725055)
04-23-2014 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by frako
04-23-2014 3:18 PM


Definition of Life ...
Yea the answer to how life arose requires a definition of what life is. To me it has to furfill one property self replication with modification. Im one of those that categorises viruses as alive even though its only a strand of RNA
I agree, to me the essential aspect of life is that it can evolve, ergo life can be defined as something that can undergo the process of biological evolution:
The process of (biological) evolution involves changes in the composition of hereditary traits, and changes to the frequency of their distributions within breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological challenges and opportunities.
And yes, this would include viruses. Given the "RNA World" hypothesis it can also be (and is) argued that viruses are the left over bits from that time.
The amount of viruses in the world is unknown: recently a biologist took a sailboat cruise across the Atlantic and sampled the water, every day he cataloged new viruses.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by frako, posted 04-23-2014 3:18 PM frako has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 194 of 638 (725056)
04-23-2014 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by Ed67
04-22-2014 9:31 PM


recipe for salts
Ok, this is your own word so all your gang can agree with it lol.
So, do recipes include cooking instructions?
For the chemist the process would be:
Take Sodium and Chlorine and dissolve in water, apply heat until the water evaporates.
Now there may be an excess of either (or both) left over, but most will combine by chemical reactions to form salt crystals.
If there are other elements mixed in you can get some "impurities" (mistakes?) in the salt matrix, some fitting in and perhaps changing the color of the chrystal, others interfering with the pattern so that it isn't as regular as pure NaCl salt.
Curiously, these conditions are known to occur naturally all over the world ...
Salt (chemistry) - Wikipedia
quote:
In chemistry, salts are ionic compounds that can result from the neutralization reaction of an acid and a base. They are composed of related numbers of cations (positively charged ions) and anions (negative ions) so that the product is electrically neutral (without a net charge). These component ions can be inorganic, such as chloride (Cl-), as well as organic, such as acetate (C2H3O2-); and can be monatomic, such as fluoride (F-), as well as polyatomic, such as sulfate (SO4--).
There are several varieties of salts. Salts that hydrolyze to produce hydroxide ions when dissolved in water are basic salts, whilst those that hydrolyze to produce hydronium ions in water are acidic salts. Neutral salts are those that are neither acid nor basic salts. ...
The blue salt copper(II) sulfate in the form of the mineral chalcanthite
Pretty isn't it? I wonder who designed the color ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Ed67, posted 04-22-2014 9:31 PM Ed67 has not replied

  
Ed67
Member (Idle past 3329 days)
Posts: 159
Joined: 04-14-2014


Message 195 of 638 (725057)
04-23-2014 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by ringo
04-23-2014 2:47 PM


RE: Is there a legitimate argument for design?
Thank you, ringo, for reminding me about our 'unpacking' we have to do.
ringo writes:
They called it a code. I have not disputed that it can be called a code. What I'm saying is that it is nothing beyond the structure of the molecule, nothing that every other molecule doesn't carry.
ringo writes:
The point you're (supposedly) responding to is the idea that life is a byproduct of DNA's structure. You claimed in Message 161 that Crick disproved that. Show us the disproof.
I ASKED whether Crick had disproven this idea, I didn't state it as fact.
But I was wrong in thinking that it was easy to verify; I can't locate the source that I got the info from. I must have heard about it in a lecture.
So, I'll retract the mention of Crick 'attempting and failing' to prove your point and just compare what YOU are saying with what accepted scientists such as Crick have said about the chemistry of nucleic acids.
Any normal high school biology student knows the gist of what Watson and Crick discovered about the chemistry of nucleic acids, so it will be an easy thing to discuss.
Now, do you agree that scientists have found what Crick called a 'code' embedded in the nucleic acids?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ringo, posted 04-23-2014 2:47 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Taq, posted 04-23-2014 7:20 PM Ed67 has replied
 Message 201 by JonF, posted 04-24-2014 7:55 AM Ed67 has not replied
 Message 210 by ringo, posted 04-24-2014 11:45 AM Ed67 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024