Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
.....Sir Fred Hoyle, former Astronomer Royal, calculated the probability of the amino acid sequences of the bio-molecules in an Amoeba being produced by non-intelligently directed chemical processes to be 10^-40,000 i.e. 10 to the power of 40,000!!!!
Equally, it is observed that there are 20 common amino acids used in protein synthesis. If such synthesis was achieved using non-intelligently directed processes then such a ‘blind’ system would have to ‘try’ every possible combination of amino acid to produce a useful protein eventually. It is also observed that you cannot ‘work up’ to a critical amino acid sequence – the exact sequence works, and other sequences don’t work. In addition, there are very limited numbers of useful proteins observed in nature (of the order of thousands).
The chance of producing a specific useful protein containing a 100 chain critical amino acid sequence choosing from the 20 common amino acids at each point on the chain is a binomial expansion of 1/20 x 1/20 x 1/20 ………100 times. This number turns out to be 10^ 130.
This is a number significantly greater than the number of seconds required for a snail to transport all of the matter in the known Universe bringing ONE ELECTRON at a time from one side of the universe to the other side (as measured by the Cosmic Event Horizon) and back again. If, a putative snail made a 40,000,000,000 light year ‘round trip with EACH of the 10^82 electrons in the known Universe, going at a very slow ‘snails pace' of 1 centimetre per hour it would only take 10^114 SECONDS to perform such a feat!!!!
I am therefore at a complete loss to describe what size of number 10^130 is. All that I can say is that it is so large as to be a mathematical impossibility even if all of the matter and time in the Universe were to be utilised in the process.
As for Sir Fred Hoyle’s calculation for the undirected production of the bio-molecular sequences found in an Amoeba of 10^40,000 – there is absolutely nothing that I can even begin to imagine that would remotely describe this massive number!!!!
Chemistry Laws cannot assist in the process either, because it is observed that many of the bonds in protein chains can only be achieved by the use of amazingly specialised enzymes whose use is synchronised in nano-seconds with exact sequential cascades of reactions by other equally complex and specific enzymes. That is why protein molecules that are split into short chains of amino acids are NEVER observed to spontaneously re-form into useful proteins using the (supposedly) "well known attraction of Carbon” as a previous participant on another thread has characterised it. It is also one of the reasons why death is an irreversible physical process and why the spontaneous generation of life is never observed.
The really devastating thing about the above ‘Universe Defeating’ problem is that a 10 year old child of normal intelligence would take less than 20 minutes to arrange ANY specified sequence of 100 bricks representing a specific useful amino acid sequence choosing from a box of mixed bricks representing all 20 amino acids. What would clearly defeat every electron in the known universe randomly producing a 100 amino acid sequences for an effective eternity of time could be accomplished by a 10 year old child in 20 minutes – such is the importance of APPLIED INTELLIGENCE to the creation of a simple protein sequence.....and to the production of living organisms.:D:)
Firstly, I asked you to show me calculations that prove that EVOLUTION is impossible. Predictably, you've shown me some already discredited work on another topic. Hoyle considered abiogenesis improbable. He had no issue with evolution whatsoever.
However, he was off the mark on abiogenesis too. Life is unlikely to start with protein or amino acids. These are an end product of self replicating systems and cannot replicate themselves by any known means as they do not have complementarity. Also, life did not come into existence as fully formed cells in an instant. Hoyle made these two false and quite illogical assumptions amongst others. He was not a biologist and perhaps he can be forgiven for making such confusing assumptions about the likely paths of abiogenesis. His main argument was that evolution was just fine but that life originated elsewhere and arrived on Earth via panspermia. That does little more than put the abiogenesis question off. Not a problem since it's not at all as tricky as Hoyle thought.
So, once again, can you provide me with calculations that show that evolution (and not abiogenesis) is impossible?0 -
AtomicHorror said:
I accept both sides are scientists, seeing they have qualified in recognised subjects, at recognised universities, and practiced their profession.
By your criteria no one who is not an astrophysicist can tell who is and who is not an astrophysicist.
You're not listening. I am asking you to be a scientist. To take it upon yourself to try to understand the material. You keep on telling us you can't judge the science, that you look to J C or others for that. I am suggesting that you do the research, the basic reading required to understand the subject matter and make better judgments on who is a hack and who has the goods.
Qualifications are okay, but they're only the start. University posts aren't a bad indicator at all actually, but check to see if they're current. Certain lists of academics supporting ID for example, tend to list universities after the supporters very selectively. Qualified in Berkley? Then they list Berkley even if the fella got a basic degree there and has been working in a chipper ever since. The big question is where are they now and for how long. But I return to my first point. The gold standard is you, your reason and your skepticism.Not normal evolution - IDish evolution. He removed the main scientific objection to evolution. This from the article I posted:
Hoyle's Panspermia theory
Mathematics of Evolution does not contain an elaborated Panspermia theory. I found the following fragments:
1. the basic features of life, such as enzymes, tRNA, histones, the genetic code are extraterrestrial (p103). 2. "all genes in present day organisms were here already in the metazoans that invade the Earth 570 million years ago at the beginning of the Cambrian Era, making the subsequent story of terrestrial evolution into one in which genes have been called into operation as ecological conditions permitted them to be so." (xvi).
I see no suggestion of design in Hoyle's work. At any rate, his work has been quite thoroughly debunked. His first basic assumption, that abiogenesis should occur in a single step, makes no sense at all.AtomicHorror: Again I ask, how can you tell those acting consciously or unconsciously in defiance of God from those who are simply telling a truth that you are failing to grasp? You cannot rely on the bible for an answer if those people are correct, so what do you have?
Wolfsbane: I'm telling it as the Bible describes - the motivation of the sinful heart of man.
Do you not see the paradox here? Some people are telling you the bible is wrong, or that your interpretation is wrong. So your means to judge the situation... is to read the bible? Without some third means of judging the situation you're trapped in circular reasoning. If you will not trust that you can assimilate and critically assess science then you are left only with your ability to assess scripture.The place where we are talking at cross-purposes is to logically exist. Both creationism and evolution require no prior assumptions about origins for them to exist as scientific models. But both require a prior explanation of origins for them to logically exist. Neither can claim they always were, or came into being of themselves. Creation or abiogenesis must explain them.
You've almost got it. A scientific model or hypothesis must come from logic in order to be a scientific hypothesis rather than just an idea. It must be built upon that which it itself is. Testability and falsifiability. Evolution is based on an origins explanation which can be tested; abiogenesis. Creationism is based on an origins explanation which cannot be tested. The wave of God's Hand.The motivation is a spiritual one - in the heart of man an enmity against God rules. The only enemy is the true God and His word. All false gods and false doctrines and false science can be embraced - if it will undermine the veracity of the Bible. They can argue among themselves, but they unite when it comes to anything that agrees with God's word.
I asked you if you could prove that the scientist act as one. If you could prove that they have this motive of which you are so very fond. And I return to my above point, if one possible implication of this great debate is indeed that the bible is wrong, then why do you insist on relying upon it when you have your God-given reason as the ultimate decider?0 -
In any event, if you have a putative organism trying to evolve a particular protein to perform a particular essential function.....the 'useless combinatorial space' surrounding this protein will be such that non-intelligently directed processes will NEVER 'find' the functional protein sequence required .....even IF you have all of the matter and time in the Universe (which we don't)!!!!!:D
Why do you insist upon talking about proteins as if they formed by themselves... ever? As if they recombine... ever? I'd love to know what your scientific qualification is, but I can guess that it had squat to do with biology.0 -
So once again, when pushed and confronted to give a definite answer, about four to five times, J C reacts by publishing an essay designed to change the subject. If it's not the morality of evolution or an attack on his straw man "spontaneous evolution", it's that one I forgot about in my repeating list. Abiogenesis.
Abiogenesis is not a theory. It is a set of hypotheses. Evolution and abiogenesis stand independent, at the very least because one is theory and the other is not.
So, let's talk about evolution. Not the morality of a scientific theory, not some vague analogy-driven straw-man evolution and not abiogenesis. The theory of evolution.0 -
And yet you continue to indulge him AtomicHorror
0 -
Advertisement
-
I DON'T have to assume just one viable sequence
Yet the whole of JC's 'mathematical proof' that evolution is wrong rests on just this wrong assumption. JC's calculation (that 1/20 ^ 100 one) assumes that for a protein to do a particular job, there is only one possible amino acid for every single position in the protein sequence. The sequence, then, must evolve purely by chance until the last amino acid pops into place, making it work. This would be spectacularly unlikely, but it's not reality. When we look at real genes, not JC's made-up one, we see that different sequences - sometimes very different - can do the same, or a similar job. This immediately suggests how a protein we see today evolved from earlier ones that did more or less the same job, and they in turn evolved from still earlier versions, with sequence and function shifting further and further as you go back through the generations.
It's always worth Googling creationist stuff to see where it's been pasted from. Here, it turns out it's JC's own work - from three years ago, in this same thread, here. However, it has evolved slightly:
2005: 'the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work.'
has now become
2008: 'the exact sequence works, and other sequences don’t work.'
So JC has evidently changed his position to allow that one protein sequence can evolve from another functional one, and it from another and so on. However, JC doesn't recognise that, in changing this, he's torpedoed his 'proof'.....and BTW the massive amount of COMMON SEQUENCES between different organisms illustrates just how FEW sequences are functional....and is evidence of a Common Designer of these creature's genomes
Sharing of sequences between species is, of course, what we'd predict based on common ancestry. Score 1 for evolution. It's not a necessary consequence of any 'Common Designer' acting, hence not predicted by 'creation science'. Score 0.
Actually, that reminds me - just what has 'creation science' ever successfully predicted that evolution hasn't? The reality is that 'creation science' can't predict anything, so clearly isn't science, and has no place in a science classroom.0 -
-
-
.....my calculations show that BOTH Aboiogenesis and the production of functional biomolecules are IMPOSSIBLE....and therefore Materialistic Evolution NEVER occurred!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »Firstly, I asked you to show me calculations that prove that EVOLUTION is impossible. Predictably, you've shown me some already discredited work on another topic. Hoyle considered abiogenesis improbable. He had no issue with evolution whatsoever.
However, he was off the mark on abiogenesis too. Life is unlikely to start with protein or amino acids. These are an end product of self replicating systems and cannot replicate themselves by any known means as they do not have complementarity. Also, life did not come into existence as fully formed cells in an instant. Hoyle made these two false and quite illogical assumptions amongst others. He was not a biologist and perhaps he can be forgiven for making such confusing assumptions about the likely paths of abiogenesis. His main argument was that evolution was just fine but that life originated elsewhere and arrived on Earth via panspermia. That does little more than put the abiogenesis question off. Not a problem since it's not at all as tricky as Hoyle thought.
So, once again, can you provide me with calculations that show that evolution (and not abiogenesis) is impossible?
You say that Sir fred Hoyle's "main argument was that evolution was just fine but that life originated elsewhere and arrived on Earth via panspermia".....equally Creation Scientists accept that evolution (in the sense of Speciation and Natural Selection within Kinds) occurs....and life originated here on Earth by Direct Creation!!!:D0 -
.......protein synthesis is but ONE process which Evolution must explain....the formation of Amino Acids, DNA and thousands of other biomolecules and their coherent assembly into cells and the coherent assembly and specialisation of cells to produce multicellular organisms ALSO must be explained.Originally Posted by J C
In any event, if you have a putative organism trying to evolve a particular protein to perform a particular essential function.....the 'useless combinatorial space' surrounding this protein will be such that non-intelligently directed processes will NEVER 'find' the functional protein sequence required .....even IF you have all of the matter and time in the Universe (which we don't)!!!!!
AtomicHorror
Why do you insist upon talking about proteins as if they formed by themselves... ever? As if they recombine... ever? I'd love to know what your scientific qualification is, but I can guess that it had squat to do with biology.
I chose ONE SMALL aspect of protein synthesis, namely the production of a specific functional Amino Acid Sequence.....and I have proven that is cannot be done by non-intelligently directed processes....and if a simple protein cannot be produced then Materialistic Evolution is mathematically impossible.....and we don't need to bother calculating the odds of producing the biomolecules in an Amoeba using non-intelligent prosesses...like Sir fred Hoyle did!!!!:eek:0 -
Advertisement
-
.....my calculations show that BOTH Aboiogenesis and the production of functional biomolecules are IMPOSSIBLE....and therefore Materialistic Evolution NEVER occurred!!!.......protein synthesis is but ONE process which Evolution must explain....the formation of Amino Acids, DNA and thousands of other biomolecules and their coherent assembly into cells and the coherent assembly and specialisation of cells to produce multicellular organisms ALSO must be explained.
I have an equation for you J C and here it is: Abiogenesis=/=Evolution.I chose ONE SMALL aspect of protein synthesis, namely the production of a specific functional Amino Acid Sequence.....and I have proven that is cannot be done by non-intelligently directed processes....and if a simple protein cannot be produced then Materialistic Evolution is mathematically impossible.....
I'm afraid that all you have done is completely mess up a statistics calculation, yet again confuse abiogenesis with evolution and just show that you have no idea what you are talking about.0 -
.....my calculations show that BOTH Aboiogenesis and the production of functional biomolecules are IMPOSSIBLE....and therefore Materialistic Evolution NEVER occurred!!!
What do you mean by "the production of functional biomolecules"? From what stage?
Nobody is suggesting that proteins, lipids, sugars RNA and DNA were synthesised into a cell in one step, and besides that the process you are describing has nothing to do with evolution........protein synthesis is but ONE process which Evolution must explain....
Proteins are synthesised by ribosomes in a process called translation. That process was present in the first identifiable cell. It has since evolved further. There we go. Explained.the formation of Amino Acids, DNA and thousands of other biomolecules and their coherent assembly into cells and the coherent assembly and specialisation of cells to produce multicellular organisms ALSO must be explained.
In terms of just evolution, there's no mystery. That coherence is understood. The means by which cells are assembled is understood. Tisssue organisation and evolution is understood. The formation of the very first cells is not part of the theory of evolution.I chose ONE SMALL aspect of protein synthesis, namely the production of a specific functional Amino Acid Sequence.....and I have proven that is cannot be done by non-intelligently directed processes....
My ribosomes are creating millions of functional proteins every second. They are not intelligent.and if a simple protein cannot be produced then Materialistic Evolution is mathematically impossible.....
Evolution does not deal with the origin of life, nor the origin of the first proteins nor lipids nor any cellular component. Right now it starts with the last common ancestor of all known life. A fully formed and self replicating cell. You understand this. You are trying to derail us.and we don't need to bother calculating the odds of producing the biomolecules in an Amoeba using non-intelligent prosesses...like Sir fred Hoyle did!!!!:eek:
An amoeba is far from a simple organism. Even for a single celled life form it is highly complex. Its synthesis from non living matter is outside of the context of the theory of evolution.0 -
..it is reality for critical sequences within Proteins.Yet the whole of JC's 'mathematical proof' that evolution is wrong rests on just this wrong assumption. JC's calculation (that 1/20 ^ 100 one) assumes that for a protein to do a particular job, there is only one possible amino acid for every single position in the protein sequence. The sequence, then, must evolve purely by chance until the last amino acid pops into place, making it work. This would be spectacularly unlikely, but it's not reality.
......very different sequences doing similar jobs DON'T indicate evolution between the sequences......because each sequence is surrounded by vast useless combinatorial space.....and therefore any intermediate sequences between them would have been non functional .....and would have either killed the organism or if unexpressed would not have been amenable to Natural Selection...and therefore would not have evolved further!!!!:DWhen we look at real genes, not JC's made-up one, we see that different sequences - sometimes very different - can do the same, or a similar job. This immediately suggests how a protein we see today evolved from earlier ones that did more or less the same job, and they in turn evolved from still earlier versions, with sequence and function shifting further and further as you go back through the generations.
.....more irrelevant 'nit picking'!!!!!!!!It's always worth Googling creationist stuff to see where it's been pasted from. Here, it turns out it's JC's own work - from three years ago, in this same thread, here. However, it has evolved slightly:
2005: 'the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work.'
has now become
2008: 'the exact sequence works, and other sequences don’t work.'
So JC has evidently changed his position to allow that one protein sequence can evolve from another functional one, and it from another and so on. However, JC doesn't recognise that, in changing this, he's torpedoed his 'proof'.
....as I have said, with 'Critical Sequences' the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work......
....and with mixed critical / non-critical sequences 'the exact sequence works, and other non-critical sequence changes MAY happen without adverse effects......but Natural Selection cannot work on these sequences.....thereby preventing the Evolution of functionality in these sequences.
.....the putative idea that one functional sequence can evolve by gradual means into another functional sequence is invalidated by the fact that functional sequences are observed to exist in isolation within combinatorial space with no functional intermediates between them......so there is no proverbial 'yellow brick road' linking different functional sequences along which functional sequences could evolve!!!:D
......a 'Common Designer' hypothesis would equally predict the use of common sequences!!!!Sharing of sequences between species is, of course, what we'd predict based on common ancestry. Score 1 for evolution. It's not a necessary consequence of any 'Common Designer' acting, hence not predicted by 'creation science'. Score 0.
Strictly speaking ALL hypotheses on the origins of life are OUTSIDE of science – because NEITHER the putative Acts of Creation Week nor the putative process of Evolution over millions of years are OBSERVABLE – which is a condition of The Scientific Method.Actually, that reminds me - just what has 'creation science' ever successfully predicted that evolution hasn't? The reality is that 'creation science' can't predict anything, so clearly isn't science, and has no place in a science classroom.
However, Science does have the POTENTIAL to answer the question “DID an ‘External Intelligence’ aka God Create life – or was life produced by natural processes via Evolution?
We therefore have two basic hypotheses in relation to the ‘origins question’ :-
1. That God Created all life ex nihilo through His Divine Will.
2. That all life arose spontaneously through gradual natural processes (with or without the intervention/assistance of God).
The Act of Divine Creation as described in Genesis is NOT repeatably observable, and therefore it is strictly outside of Science – so IF Adam and Eve WERE created by God the question of HOW God did it is unanswerable by Science and it is a question that ONLY God Himself can answer.
God has told us that He SPOKE all life into existence. I choose to believe Him – but other people, of course may choose not to believe this. That is where the question of HOW God made life must rest – because it is evidentially a matter of FAITH founded on the Word of God – and not of SCIENCE.
However, the EVIDENCE following on from such a putative Act of Divine Creation SHOULD be repeatably observable and it IS therefore within the competence of Science to evaluate it.
Evidence for such an Act of Creation would include the instantaneous emergence of all basic life-forms with full PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity. Such genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards. Evidence for Direct Creation would also include the observation of complex molecules such as DNA being required as a PRE-REQUISITE to the synthesis of simple bio-molecules – and not the other way around. One would also expect to see information of great complexity and density within living systems (reflecting the infinite intelligence of the God that Created it).
If it is true that God Directly Created all life we would also expect that no plausible alternative natural mechanisms for the origins of life to be observable or objectively demonstrable – and the leading contender in this regard of Materialistic Evolution HASN’T provided any such plausible evidence despite over 150 years of intensive research.
The highly complex, tightly specified and precisely sequenced living systems that are observed in living organisms DO provide strong objective evidence for Direct Creation. Equally, the purposeful highly specified design inherent at all levels within living systems from the ‘sub-cellular level’ to the ‘cellular level’ to the ‘organ level’ to the ‘body plan level’ also indicates that an ‘External Intelligent Agent’ of enormous power and intelligence created all life.
On the other hand, IF life arose spontaneously and/or gradually, the putative natural / divine mechanisms underpinning this process should still be observable – but to date such processes haven’t been identified or observed. If the spontaneous generation of life was a ‘once off fluke’ or if Evolution is a process so gradual as to be unobservable – then it is strictly outside of Science and within the realm of Faith.:D0 -
....as I have said, with 'Critical Sequences' the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work......
JC hasn't shown that there exist in nature any 100-amino acid long protein sequences in which, for functionality, every single position can only be occupied by one specific amino acid. As I've pointed out, when we look at real genes and real proteins, we find they don't behave like this. Everything else JC is saying is therefore irrelevant - just more assertions with nothing to back them up.
Edit:
More treasures from JC's back catalogue. This one's from Jan 2006. JC, if you're just going to copy and paste your old posts at random then I'll go back to ignoring you.We have two basic hypotheses [...] it is strictly outside of science
Oh, and still not one specific, verified prediction from 'creation science' that contradicts evolution.0 -
......very different sequences doing similar jobs DON'T indicate evolution between the sequences......because each sequence is surrounded by vast useless combinatorial space.....and therefore any intermediate sequences between them would have been non functional .....and would have either killed the organism or if unexpressed would not have been amenable to Natural Selection...and therefore would not have evolved further!!!!:D
[snip]
One would also expect to see information of great complexity and density within living systems (reflecting the infinite intelligence of the God that Created it).
Just out of curiosity J C, why are there "vast useless combinatorial spaces" around the important sequences if they where created by a by an "infinite intelligence"? Why would an "infinite intelligence" have "vast useless combinatorial spaces" in genetic sequences?0 -
As JC ignored my post 3 times i'll say it again....
QUANTUM PHYSICS!!!!!!!0 -
..it is reality for critical sequences within Proteins.
Examples of these critical sequences please.......very different sequences doing similar jobs DON'T indicate evolution between the sequences......because each sequence is surrounded by vast useless combinatorial space.....
What does that mean? Combinatorial spaces are not relevant to DNA, RNA or protein sequences. It's not as if we can imagine a protein as a three dimensional box matrix. Their primary structure is linear. The connections are not random but determined by a gene. Even bringing it back to DNA makes the notion nonsensical. These are sequences that were selected. Total random recombination is not a feature of evolution at any level. Just where are you getting this rubbish from and how does it apply to evolution?...and therefore any intermediate sequences between them would have been non functional
The majority is not the same as "any" by a long shot......and would have either killed the organism or if unexpressed would not have been amenable to Natural Selection...and therefore would not have evolved further!!!!:D
Rubbish. Black and white thinking. Even very detrimental mutations may still allow many generations of offspring......more irrelevant 'knit picking'!!!!!!!!
....as I have said, with 'Critical Sequences' the exact sequence works, and any other sequence doesn’t work......
Show us an example sequence and I can show you an example of a species in which the criticality is non-existent. We see so many examples of redundant systems in organisms, why assume that this cannot be so for some of the example "critical" systems or sequences?
And more to the point, why would an "intelligent creator" design a life system such as DNA, allowing it to be mutable and yet still build some systems as non redundant and others as multiply redundant? One mutation and, if we take your logic, the organism is dead. That constitutes a massive design flaw. That constitutes imperfect design from a supposedly infinite intelligence.
Or is this another example of the corruption of our genome since the fall? In which case you would have to admit the possibility that an apparently "critical" system may evolve or mutate from a redundant system to merely appear critical. Exactly what evolution predicts.....and with mixed critical / non-critical sequences 'the exact sequence works, and other non-critical sequence changes MAY happen without adverse effects......but Natural Selection cannot work on these sequences.....thereby preventing the Evolution of functionality in these sequences.
Evolution occurs by more than just natural selection. The removal of function of a non-critical sequence may remove it from selection, but that has no impact on the mutation capacity of a sequence, nor its drift through the gene pool. The restoration of "visibility" to natural selection, positive or negative, is always just a question of mutation......the putative idea that one functional sequence can evolve by gradual means into another functional sequence is invalidated by the fact that functional sequences are observed to exist in isolation within combinatorial space with no functional intermediates between them......
Then why do we have protein families? Why do we have literally millions of examples of functional, detrimental and non-functional intermediates?so there is no proverbial 'yellow brick road' linking different functional sequences along which functional sequences could evolve!!!:D
As above. Tons of examples. Chemokines and defensins. Chemokine receptors and the GPCR family. Immunoglobulins and all the related receptor and soluble molecule families. Tolls and toll-like proteins. Interleukins. Massive families of related proteins with differing functions.......a 'Common Designer' hypothesis would equally predict the use of common sequences!!!!
No it wouldn't. That assumes you know the mind of your designer. You certainly don't have any science on that. Is our creator very experimental, does he stick to a routine? There are so many unknowns in the "hypothesis" that predictions are not meaningful.
The creator seems very fickle. So many examples of convergence. Why do the same job with completely different genes in some cases whilst not doing so in others? And why does the choice between those two options always fall along lines that break your precious kinds but which make perfect sense within the context of evolution? Why design eyes more than once for similar sized organisms? Why design adaptive immunity twice but using entirely different sets of genes and yet at the same time providing spookily similar results on the gross level? Why bother with that detail but give every organism in existence the same triplicate protein coding sequence and the same genetic system?
In fact, if we take for a moment your "hypothesis" that life was designed to be valid, we must conclude that there is more than one designer. Several, each with differing agendas and design aesthetics. Working in the same medium, but little more.Strictly speaking ALL hypotheses on the origins of life are OUTSIDE of science – because NEITHER the putative Acts of Creation Week nor the putative process of Evolution over millions of years are OBSERVABLE – which is a condition of The Scientific Method.
Only if you take observation to mean direct observation. I repeat again that by that logic no crime could be solved without a witness. All of forensics, logic, psychology and deduction would be considered inadmissible.However, Science does have the POTENTIAL to answer the question “DID an ‘External Intelligence’ aka God Create life – or was life produced by natural processes via Evolution?
We therefore have two basic hypotheses in relation to the ‘origins question’ :-
1. That God Created all life ex nihilo through His Divine Will.
2. That all life arose spontaneously through gradual natural processes (with or without the intervention/assistance of God).
The Act of Divine Creation as described in Genesis is NOT repeatably observable, and therefore it is strictly outside of Science – so IF Adam and Eve WERE created by God the question of HOW God did it is unanswerable by Science and it is a question that ONLY God Himself can answer.
God has told us that He SPOKE all life into existence. I choose to believe Him – but other people, of course may choose not to believe this. That is where the question of HOW God made life must rest – because it is evidentially a matter of FAITH founded on the Word of God – and not of SCIENCE.
However, the EVIDENCE following on from such a putative Act of Divine Creation SHOULD be repeatably observable and it IS therefore within the competence of Science to evaluate it.
Evidence for such an Act of Creation would include the instantaneous emergence of all basic life-forms with full PRE-EXISTING genetic diversity. Such genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards.
Oh good, some predictions. So, in biological terms, in genetics, what does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean? How would you measure this?Evidence for Direct Creation would also include the observation of complex molecules such as DNA being required as a PRE-REQUISITE to the synthesis of simple bio-molecules – and not the other way around. One would also expect to see information of great complexity and density within living systems (reflecting the infinite intelligence of the God that Created it).
Why would that be something that Creation would demand? It's what we observe and it can no longer be disputed, but why does divine creation need DNA or any genetics? If what you say is so obviously true, then why did nobody suggest the notion of genetic inheritance before Mendel?If it is true that God Directly Created all life we would also expect that no plausible alternative natural mechanisms for the origins of life to be observable or objectively demonstrable – and the leading contender in this regard of Materialistic Evolution HASN’T provided any such plausible evidence despite over 150 years of intensive research.
Why would you expect that observation? You'd expect that if only God could create life. But that is not a part of your hypothesis. You're merely suggesting an intelligent designer at this point. We might create life tomorrow, intelligent design becomes real. Does that make abiogenesis impossible?The highly complex, tightly specified and precisely sequenced living systems that are observed in living organisms
...are disordered, redundant in many cases, at times inefficient, convergent, under-designed, over-designed.... just drop this heavily over used phrase, it's inaccurate. Highly complex, yes. Tightly specified, no because of inactive code, redundancy, partial copying. Precisely sequenced, no because we can with our limited human intelligence see and design better suited sequences plus this ignores polymorphism and of courses genetic disease. Life is a stunning thing but as I said before, if it is designed then it's by a maniac or several of them.DO provide strong objective evidence for Direct Creation. Equally, the purposeful highly specified design inherent at all levels within living systems from the ‘sub-cellular level’ to the ‘cellular level’ to the ‘organ level’ to the ‘body plan level’ also indicates that an ‘External Intelligent Agent’ of enormous power and intelligence created all life.
What we see is not perfect. So immediately, your prediction has been falsified. Evolution predicts the opposite and we see it time and again.On the other hand, IF life arose spontaneously and/or gradually, the putative natural / divine mechanisms underpinning this process should still be observable – but to date such processes haven’t been identified or observed.
Oh, actually we have. They're called mutation, selection, drift, gene flow, adaption, speciation, adaption and inheritance. Collectively called "evolution", this set of processes is scientifically modeled by the "Theory of Evolution". Observation has variously been direct and indirect, but all observations to date have fit our model of these processes.If the spontaneous generation of life was a ‘once off fluke’ or if Evolution is a process so gradual as to be unobservable – then it is strictly outside of Science and within the realm of Faith.:D
Anything unobservable is certainly within the realm of faith. However we can and have observed all of the processes predicted by evolutionary theory, so it's within science.0 -
HouseHippo wrote: »As JC ignored my post 3 times i'll say it again....
QUANTUM PHYSICS!!!!!!!
What's the question Hippo? I'm not sure where it fits into the debate. Could you elaborate a bit?0 -
Well Do you know anything about quantum Physics???0
-
HouseHippo wrote: »Well Do you know anything about quantum Physics???
Not a whole lot really. I did some atomic orbital theory and molecular orbital theory as part of my general degree in chemistry. That covered aspects of quantum physics. Heisenberg uncertainty and such. I get the basic principles but I did not excel at it.0 -
Advertisement
-
I thought it would be more along the lines of he went to college and studied sports science or childcare and then started writing about how McDonalds food was better?
MrP
Nah, I'm trying to demonstrate by analogy that a science qualification does not a scientist make. Which leads us on to the amusing...YES.....it does make him a chef!!!:D
.....to get a first class honour in 'fine cuisine'.....would imply that the person CAN cook......and DID produce 'fine cuisine' !!!!
....whether he writes cook books afterwards.....or simply cooks the books.....he will be an EXCELLENT cook!!!!
I didn't say 'cook', I said 'chef'. So your assertion is that someone who does not cook professionally is a professional cook. Well, it's nonsense of course, but it does reveal a lot about your belief that people who don't work in scientific fields are scientists.....and his comments about particular restaurants will be regarded as an EXPERT OPINION!!!!:D
Even if they fly in the face of facts? McTastic.....and BTW Creation Scientists mostly continue to work as conventional scientists in conventional scientific positions!!!!!
How many are practising biologists, though?.....and only a minority write books about Creation Science!!!!:)
My analogy was a little looser than that - of course blog posts and websites are covered as well.0 -
....DNA is a means of storing and transmitting information....a languge, if you will......and like all languages it necessarily uses very tightly defined specific permutations of characters......with vast areas of non-informative or useless combinatorial space surrounding each functional (or informative) permutation!!!:DMark Hamill wrote: »Just out of curiosity J C, why are there "vast useless combinatorial spaces" around the important sequences if they where created by a by an "infinite intelligence"? Why would an "infinite intelligence" have "vast useless combinatorial spaces" in genetic sequences?
.....just like each sentence on this page is surrounded by vast areas of non-informative or useless combinatorial space.0 -
....DNA is a means of storing and transmitting information....a languge, if you will......and like all languages it necessarily uses very tightly defined specific permutations of characters......with vast areas of non-informative or useless combinatorial space surrounding each functional (or informative) permutation!!!:D
.....just like each sentence on this page is surrounded by vast areas of non-informative or useless combinatorial space.
Yes, but DNA does not randomly recombine during evolution. Mutations are usually single nucleotide changes. Your combinatorial space argument assumes that a gene must come into existence in a single step. This isn't even a purported feature of abiogenesis, let alone evolution.0 -
AtomicHorror
Examples of these critical sequences please...Haemoglobin, all hormones, the entire sight cascade....and every protein that has specific 3D active sites have critical sequences that are essential to their functionality.....and even one change in Amino Acid sequence will eliminate their functionality.
What does that mean? Combinatorial spaces are not relevant to DNA, RNA or protein sequences. It's not as if we can imagine a protein as a three dimensional box matrix. Their primary structure is linear. The connections are not random but determined by a gene. Even bringing it back to DNA makes the notion nonsensical. These are sequences that were selected. Total random recombination is not a feature of evolution at any level. Just where are you getting this rubbish from and how does it apply to evolution?....the sequences are a direct function of a gene which is itself made up of Nucleic Acid sequences.....which are translated into Amino Acid sequences......the information is stored in the DNA.....translated by the RNA....to produce the Protein......another set of variables which push up the odds of producing a specific functional protein sequence using non-intelligent processes by FURTHER astronomical amounts!!!!!!:D
Rubbish. Black and white thinking. Even very detrimental mutations may still allow many generations of offspring....Natural Selection or just plain old death would eliminate them within one generation!!!
Show us an example sequence and I can show you an example of a species in which the criticality is non-existent. We see so many examples of redundant systems in organisms, why assume that this cannot be so for some of the example "critical" systems or sequences?...manyof the so-called redundant sequences or 'Junk DNA' are now found to have functions and others are thought to have a critical role in speciation.
And more to the point, why would an "intelligent creator" design a life system such as DNA, allowing it to be mutable and yet still build some systems as non redundant and others as multiply redundant? One mutation and, if we take your logic, the organism is dead. That constitutes a massive design flaw. That constitutes imperfect design from a supposedly infinite intelligence.
Or is this another example of the corruption of our genome since the fall? In which case you would have to admit the possibility that an apparently "critical" system may evolve or mutate from a redundant system to merely appear critical. Exactly what evolution predicts......the Fall has caused many perfect systems to become less perfect......but even still the number of imperfections are miniscule in comparison with the perfect systems in all living organisms.....and death rapidly follows any imperfection arising in any critical system!!!!:D
Evolution occurs by more than just natural selection. The removal of function of a non-critical sequence may remove it from selection, but that has no impact on the mutation capacity of a sequence, nor its drift through the gene pool. The restoration of "visibility" to natural selection, positive or negative, is always just a question of mutation......but it does prevent NS being able to 'search out' a functional sequence by gradually following a continuum of increasing functionality......because it would become overwhelmed by the trillions of non functional sequences and the FEW functional ones!!!!!
Then why do we have protein families? Why do we have literally millions of examples of functional, detrimental and non-functional intermediates?.......functionality declines as we degrade genetic information.....your so called 'intermediaries' are the result of degradation.....and they are not intermedates between fully functional proteins at all.
As above. Tons of examples. Chemokines and defensins. Chemokine receptors and the GPCR family. Immunoglobulins and all the related receptor and soluble molecule families. Tolls and toll-like proteins. Interleukins. Massive families of related proteins with differing functions.....and all equally impossible to produce in a coherent manner by non-intelligent processes.
Your statement is like listing the components of a gearbox and then being amazed that they all fit coherently together.....because you believe that it was spontaneously assembled by natural forces and time!!!!:D
The creator seems very fickle. So many examples of convergence. Why do the same job with completely different genes in some cases whilst not doing so in others? And why does the choice between those two options always fall along lines that break your precious kinds but which make perfect sense within the context of evolution? Why design eyes more than once for similar sized organisms? Why design adaptive immunity twice but using entirely different sets of genes and yet at the same time providing spookily similar results on the gross level? Why bother with that detail but give every organism in existence the same triplicate protein coding sequence and the same genetic system?...what a WONDERFUL God HE is!!!!:D
In fact, if we take for a moment your "hypothesis" that life was designed to be valid, we must conclude that there is more than one designer. Several, each with differing agendas and design aesthetics. Working in the same medium, but little more.......NO ....just ONE omnipotent and omniscient God!!!!:eek::D
Oh good, some predictions. So, in biological terms, in genetics, what does "genetic information should be observed to ‘run downwards or sidewards’ but never upwards" mean? How would you measure this?...by looking at what happens when mutations occur.....and by looking at what happens when organisms reproduce!!!:D
Why would that be something that Creation would demand? It's what we observe and it can no longer be disputed, but why does divine creation need DNA or any genetics? If what you say is so obviously true, then why did nobody suggest the notion of genetic inheritance before Mendel?.....it is the medium of reproduction ....and the Bible confirmed that all organisms reproduce after their Kind!!!!0 -
The Mad Hatter wrote: »How many are practising biologists, though?
It wouldn't be hard for a creationist to have a low level science or teaching position completely unrelated to creation. This, apparently, is the going definition for a creation scientist according to J C. I've argued in this thread, that these people are 'scientists who are creationists' rather than 'creation scientists' - and J C agreed.
My point is that I find it much more damning that so-called creation scientists don't actually do creation science.0 -
One could call their reaction liberal facism, but that would miss the point: this is at heart a religious response. Professor Reiss mentioned creationism without in the same breath pronoucing the anathema, so may have exposed the unwary devotee of scientism to independent thought.A sad day for Rev Professor Michael Reiss MA, PhD, PGCE, MBA, FIBiol who is an Evolutionist and Professor of Science Education and Head of the School of Mathematics, Science and Technology at the Institute of Education London.
Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4768820.ece
This article from happier times, describes Rev. Prof. Reiss as "the collective voice of scientists on the best way to teach their subject".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2006/nov/28/academicexperts.highereducationprofile
Well known Human Fertility Expert and Evolutionist, Lord Winston, Professor of Science and Society at Imperial College, London, came to Rev Prof Reiss' defence and he is quoted as saying “This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.”
However, according to today's Time's Article "(Rev. Prof. Rees') resignation comes after a campaign by senior Royal Society Fellows who were angered by Professor Reiss’s suggestion that science teachers should treat creationist beliefs “not as a misconception but as a world view”.
Sir Richard Roberts, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1993, described such views as outrageous, and organised a letter to the society’s president, Lord Rees of Ludlow, demanding that Professor Reiss be sacked."
....when this is what can happen a top Evolutionist....who is trying to support Materiaistic Evolution ....I wonder what could happen a scientist who openly declared themselves to be a Young Earth Creationist.....
.....and ye guys want me to publicly identify myself....and provide my scientific qualifications!!!:eek:
Heresy of the worst kind. No wonder they hounded him out. Strange how the devotees here have kept quiet on the issue.0 -
It wouldn't be hard for a creationist to have a low level science or teaching position completely unrelated to creation. This, apparently, is the going definition for a creation scientist according to J C. I've argued in this thread, that these people are 'scientists who are creationists' rather than 'creation scientists' - and J C agreed.
My point is that I find it much more damning that so-called creation scientists don't actually do creation science.
All science is creationist science - it all comes from the Creator.
But if you mean creation science in the same sense as evolutionary science - the knowledge and study of science as it supports the respective model of life, then you will find on-going research in the creation field, eg:
http://creationresearch.org/
http://www.bryancore.org/0 -
Lets not forget some of his detractors were CHRISTIANS too!!!
He was fired because of his pro-creationist agenda. Creationists everywhere celebrating no-doubt. More proof that Evolution is an Anti-Christian conspiracy.0 -
Strange how the devotees here have kept quiet on the issue.
I think it's quite sad and unfair TBH....
that you seem to be cherrypicking the article to make it look like he has been booted out of the scientific community.He is to return, full-time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.
In fact some members of the scientific community reckon Reiss made a good point:This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.
I must say I agree with Reiss on the issue:Reiss wrote:My experience after having tried to teach biology for 20 years is if one simply gives the impression that such children are wrong, then they are not likely to learn much about the science.
He is clearly not saying Creationism is right, nor is he even suggesting that it has scientific merit. He is simply putting forward a more diplomatic way of dealing with said topic when it arises.
As usual, it looks as if the media have tried cooking up a storm where there was only a minor shower.0 -
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement