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 2)

1…105106108110111…232

Comments

  • #3212
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I will only discuss the details with people who show genuine interest in it and who will listen with respect ...
    ... and who will concentrate on questioning my ideas instead of engaging in insulting ad hominems.

    so everyone on this thread is undeserving of the examples of experiments you've been asked to provide?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3213
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    so everyone on this thread is undeserving of the examples of experiments you've been asked to provide?
    I have already provided you with examples here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83670326&postcount=3180
    ... and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83673960&postcount=3197
    ... and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83683487&postcount=3205
    ... and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83658013&postcount=3161


  • #3214
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    I have already provided you with examples here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83670326&postcount=3180
    ... and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83673960&postcount=3197
    ... and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83683487&postcount=3205
    ... and here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=83658013&postcount=3161

    I beg to disagree, JC. None of those posts contain details of any experiments. They declarative statements with no supporting data/evidence. Is it really so much trouble to give some detail to one experiment creationists/IDers have done that provided evidence for creationism?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3215
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    I beg to disagree, JC. None of those posts contain details of any experiments. They declarative statements with no supporting data/evidence. Is it really so much trouble to give some detail to one experiment creationists/IDers have done that provided evidence for creationism?
    Here is an experimental scheme for ID
    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

    ... and here is an interesting philosophical paper on the reasons for and effects of not allowing a balance between theism and atheism in science
    http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/science_and_religion_can_be_reconciled.pdf


  • #3216
    Masteroid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 352 ✭✭Masteroid


    J C wrote: »
    To lie about somebody who is telling the truth is bearing false witness ... so it is you who are bearing false witness against me.

    ...

    You said:
    J C wrote:
    ... the ID hypothesis has been validated and Miler-Urey proves that life could never spontaneously arise.

    Then you said:
    J C wrote:
    ... Miller-Urey et al proved that only about half of the amino acids required for life could be produced using sophisticated lab techniques ... and they were produced as a racemate ... which would be useless for life.

    ID has produced proven means to identify the 'fingerprint' of intelligent actions ... and living systems have these 'fingerprints' in every aspect of their activity.

    Where to start...

    You claim that Miller-Urey proved that abiogenesis cannot occur, i.e., that they have proved a negative.

    Inherent in your claim is a claim that all the experiments that can possibly be done to explore the question of abiogenesis have been done, that there is no more to do and that leaves us with only the one possibility that science has not yet considered, it all happened by magic.

    Your original assertion is totally untrue and one does not need to be a scientist in order to notice the ludicrousness of that statement.

    And not content with knowingly making false assertions, you go on to try and steal credit from the work of others.

    The means by which we can examine 'God's fingerprint' were not contibutions of IDists at all.

    A good analogy for the relationship between science and creationism would be a situation not unlike two people taking an exam.

    So you have a creationist and a scientist sat next to each other in an exam and every now and then the creationist leans over and looks at the scientist's answers and then writes them down as his own changing any conclusions into a 'Goddunnit' conclusion.

    At the end of the exam, the creationist walks up to the adjudicator and tells him that he thinks that the scientist had cheated and copied his answers.

    The adjudicator checks and finds that the two papers are almost identical except in terms of their conclusions and the scientist is confronted for cheating.

    Of course, the scientist denies cheating and because he is an actual scientist he realises that it's a 'his word against mine' situation and the advantage is with the creationist so he doesn't get into that argument.

    Instead, he asks the creationist to answer a few questions that appeared on the paper and submits himself to the same test.

    It becomes quickly apparent that the creationist doesn't have a clue and that the scientist produces the same answers that appear on the papers.

    The scientist passes.

    And in order to protect the scientist's credibility, the creationist passes too.

    It's ignoble and dishonourable to claim the work of others as your own.

    It's cheating.

    And as I said, it is dishonest.

    Just what are you hoping to achieve here?


  • Advertisement
  • #3217
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    Here is an experimental scheme for ID
    http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1136

    ... and here is an interesting philosophical paper on the reasons for and effects of not allowing a balance between theism and atheism in science
    http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/science_and_religion_can_be_reconciled.pdf

    Haven't read the pdf yet but with regards to the first link where it outlines ID/creationism model, the following video shows just how wrong it is by addressing the flagellum example.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_HVrjKcvrU


    EDIT: that pdf is painful reading, "atheism is a religion" is being suggested as well as "science is a religion" :confused:

    It really is skirting the edges of "God of the Gaps". It doesn't address how it would examine a supernatural cause as the origin of life. It also dishonestly states that "cause unknown" isn't allowed in science, how on Earth is science to experiment with such a restriction?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3218
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Masteroid wrote: »
    You said:



    Then you said:



    Where to start...

    You claim that Miller-Urey proved that abiogenesis cannot occur, i.e., that they have proved a negative.

    Inherent in your claim is a claim that all the experiments that can possibly be done to explore the question of abiogenesis have been done, that there is no more to do and that leaves us with only the one possibility that science has not yet considered, it all happened by magic.

    Your original assertion is totally untrue and one does not need to be a scientist in order to notice the ludicrousness of that statement.

    And not content with knowingly making false assertions, you go on to try and steal credit from the work of others.

    The means by which we can examine 'God's fingerprint' were not contibutions of IDists at all.

    A good analogy for the relationship between science and creationism would be a situation not unlike two people taking an exam.

    So you have a creationist and a scientist sat next to each other in an exam and every now and then the creationist leans over and looks at the scientist's answers and then writes them down as his own changing any conclusions into a 'Goddunnit' conclusion.

    At the end of the exam, the creationist walks up to the adjudicator and tells him that he thinks that the scientist had cheated and copied his answers.

    The adjudicator checks and finds that the two papers are almost identical except in terms of their conclusions and the scientist is confronted for cheating.

    Of course, the scientist denies cheating and because he is an actual scientist he realises that it's a 'his word against mine' situation and the advantage is with the creationist so he doesn't get into that argument.

    Instead, he asks the creationist to answer a few questions that appeared on the paper and submits himself to the same test.

    It becomes quickly apparent that the creationist doesn't have a clue and that the scientist produces the same answers that appear on the papers.

    The scientist passes.

    And in order to protect the scientist's credibility, the creationist passes too.

    It's ignoble and dishonourable to claim the work of others as your own.

    It's cheating.

    And as I said, it is dishonest.

    Just what are you hoping to achieve here?
    What are you talking about ... please stop talking in riddles ... and dreaming up imaginary scenarios that are deeply prejudicial to Theists in general ... and Creationists in particular.

    The failure of Miller-Urey et al ... and I did say et al i.e. all of the Abilogenesis research since Miller-Urey as well ... has failed spectacularly to come anywhere near producing life ... and thus it is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt that only an Intelligence of inordinate capacity could have produced life.
    I'm not saying that it has proven it absolutely because such a proof is impossible ... but it has proven it beyond all reasonable doubt.


  • #3219
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Miller-Urey et al proved that only about half of the amino acids required for life could be produced using sophisticated lab techniques ... and they were produced as a racemate ... which would be useless for life.
    There are several hypotheses and supportive experimental data to demonstrate symmetry breaking leading to enantiomer excess.


  • #3220
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    What are you talking about ... please stop talking in riddles ... and dreaming up imaginary scenarios that are deeply prejudicial to Theists in general ... and Creationists in particular.

    The failure of Miller-Urey et al ... and I did say et al i.e. all of the Abilogenesis research since Miller-Urey as well ... has failed spectacularly to come anywhere near producing life ... and thus it is a proof beyond all reasonable doubt that only an Intelligence of inordinate capacity could have produced life.
    I'm not saying that it has proven it absolutely because such a proof is impossible ... but it has proven it beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Really? A clip from Sagas Cosmos explains the experiment and show that the experiment can produce organic matter.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79o6xzMfzKg

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3221
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    You're very fond of gagging and censorship of ideas and free speech, Emma

    I suppose, if you are clinging desperately to a scientifically invalidated worldview then gagging is about just about all you have left.

    You're also not very inclusive Emma ... and you don't have much respect for diversity of opinion ...
    ... or is 'inclusivity' and 'cherishing diversity' only just another 'one way street' for Secularists ... who seem to be all 'take' and no 'give' when it comes to intercommunal relations and respect, if this thread is anything to judge by.

    I didn't say I'd gag you. I said that your fellow creationists would probably gag you. And no, I'm not very inclusive of nonsense ideas parading as science, just as I'm not very inclusive of nonsense people parading as scientists. That has NOTHING to do with atheism, secularism or whatever.


  • Advertisement
  • #3222
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    doctoremma wrote: »
    There are several hypotheses and supportive experimental data to demonstrate symmetry breaking leading to enantiomer excess.

    And in layman terms for the non-scientists? :o

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3223
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Haven't read the pdf yet but with regards to the first link where it outlines ID/creationism model, the following video shows just how wrong it is by addressing the flagellum example.
    EDIT: that pdf is painful reading, "atheism is a religion" is being suggested as well as "science is a religion" :confused:

    It really is skirting the edges of "God of the Gaps". It doesn't address how it would examine a supernatural cause as the origin of life. It also dishonestly states that "cause unknown" isn't allowed in science, how on Earth is science to experiment with such a restriction?
    ID says that the intelligence that produce life is 'cause unknown' ... and this is deemed to be 'outside' science.

    ... the fallacy in the arguments against irreducible complexity is that :-
    1. The supposed functional intermediates that lead up to a more complex structure are themselves irreducibly complex and statisitical impossibilities such is the overwhelmingly large areas of combinatorial space that are non-functional.
    2. Even if a number of functional intermediates were, by some miracle, to be spontaneously separately produced, the chances of them ever coming together and being functionally compatible between each other if they did ... in order to produce a more complex functional artefact is zero.
    To illustrate, even if you have four wheels, several gears, a gear stick, a car body ... lets even assume that we have miraculously got all of the parts for a car ... there is no way that any of them will be compatible with each other if they have been separately made for other functions, with no overview of their future role to meet the functionality requirements as coherent parts of a car.
    If you blindly choose parts at random from a parts depot all you will ever end up with is pile of incompatible parts, if you don't use intelligence to make, choose and assemble the parts coherently to produce a functional car.
    3. The same is true about life ... just one incorrect part can kill the organism.


  • #3224
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    koth wrote: »
    And in layman terms for the non-scientists? :o
    Biological molecules can be left-handed or right-handed (depending on the physical arrangement of the atoms around a centre). Pairs of molecules that can appear as 'mirror images' of each other are called 'enantiomers'. Life on earth uses exclusively left-handed amino acids (see exception below). The Urey-Miller experiments produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids (a 'racemic' mixture). JC is suggesting that this mixture would be incompatible for life to arise, therefore God.

    However, there are several lines of research examining how one amino acid enantiomer - the left-handed one - could have become to be so prevalent. Many of these are fairly complicated kinetics/chemistry/physics experiments that I won't pretend to understand the maths for. But there are data that, for example, the passage of neutrinos can trigger a little excess of one enantiomer, that can then cause a chain reaction in the mixture to increase the prevalence of that enantiomer. This is called 'symmetry breaking', and there is much debate among all the theories and data about whether it happened as a random or deterministic event. Both are supported experimentally.

    Biologically, we know that some of the machinery for protein production doesn't discriminate between left- and right-handed amino acids. And some bacteria use right-handed amino acids. So that in itself pretty much renders JC's argument useless.


  • #3225
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ID says that the intelligence that produce life is 'cause unknown' ... and this is deemed to be 'outside' science.

    ... the fallacy in the arguments against irreducible complexity is that :-
    1. The supposed functional intermediates that lead up to a more complex structure are themselves irreducibly complex and statisitical impossibilities such is the overwhelmingly large areas of combinatorial space that are non-functional.
    2. Even if a number of functional intermediates were, by some miracle, to be spontaneously separately produced, the chances of them ever coming together and being functionally compatible between each other if they did ... in order to produce a more complex functional artefact is zero.
    To illustrate, even if you have four wheels, several gears, a gear stick, a car body ... lets even assume that we have miraculously got all of the parts for a car ... there is no way that any of them will be compatible with each other if they have been separately made for other functions, with no overview of their future role to meet the functionality requirements as coherent parts of a car.
    If you blindly choose parts at random from a parts depot all you will ever end up with is pile of incompatible parts, if you don't use intelligence to make, choose and assemble the parts coherently to produce a functional car.
    3. The same is true about life ... just one incorrect part will kill the organism.
    This is nonsense, just lots of words out together to try to sound scientific.

    And point 3 is sooooooo false, it's hilarious.


  • #3226
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... the fallacy in the argumants against irreducible complexity is that :-
    1. The supposed functional intermediates are themselves irreducibly complex and statisitical impossibilities such is the overwhelmingly large areas of combinatorial space that are non-functional.
    Then why did they document you link to cite the flagellum as irreducibly complex? are you saying that the document you linked to is wrong for the reasons stated in the video?
    2. Even if a number of functional intermediates were by some miracle spontaneously separately created the chances of them ever coming together and being functionally compatible between each other to produce a more complex functional artefact is zero. To illustrate, even if you have four wheels, several gears, a gear stick, a car body ... lets even assume that we have miraculously got all of the parts for a car ... there is no way that any of them will be compatible with each other if they have been separately made with no overview of their future functionality requirements as coherent parts of a car.
    If you blindly choose parts at random from a parts depot all you will ever end up with is pile of incompatible parts, if you don't use intelligence to make, choose and assemble the parts coherently to produce a functional car.
    But evolution works with regard to the entire organism not with regard to some possible organism that it may turn into down the line. If it was to work the way you suggested then it wouldn't adapt to the environment around it.
    3. The same is true about life ... just one incorrect part will kill the organism.
    So non functioning eyes will kill a baby? :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3227
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Biological molecules can be left-handed or right-handed (depending on the physical arrangement of the atoms around a centre). Pairs of molecules that can appear as 'mirror images' of each other are called 'enantiomers'. Life on earth uses exclusively left-handed amino acids (see exception below). The Urey-Miller experiments produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids (a 'racemic' mixture). JC is suggesting that this mixture would be incompatible for life to arise, therefore God.

    However, there are several lines of research examining how one amino acid enantiomer - the left-handed one - could have become to be so prevalent. Many of these are fairly complicated kinetics/chemistry/physics experiments that I won't pretend to understand the maths for. But there are data that, for example, the passage of neutrinos can trigger a little excess of one enantiomer, that can then cause a chain reaction in the mixture to increase the prevalence of that enantiomer. This is called 'symmetry breaking', and there is much debate among all the theories and data about whether it happened as a random or deterministic event. Both are supported experimentally.

    Biologically, we know that some of the machinery for protein production doesn't discriminate between left- and right-handed amino acids. And some bacteria use right-handed amino acids. So that in itself pretty much renders JC's argument useless.

    Thanks, doc :) I had begun to forgot what it's like to get a curious question answered in an informative way. *sheds tear* :P

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3228
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    There are several hypotheses and supportive experimental data to demonstrate symmetry breaking leading to enantiomer excess.
    Living processes are able to achieve and need to achieve an enantiopure compound every time ... using an enentioselective enzyme that is itself enantiopure ... a real 'chicken and egg' situation.
    ... enantiomer excess doesn't qualify in living processes!!!:)

    Within Chemistry, specifically manufacturing a desired enantiomer or resolving a racemic mixture to do so, requires very sophisticated intelligently designed equipment and processes - so why do you think that a bit of pondslime getting a belt of lightning bolt could do this millions of times?


  • #3229
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I didn't say I'd gag you. I said that your fellow creationists would probably gag you. And no, I'm not very inclusive of nonsense ideas parading as science, just as I'm not very inclusive of nonsense people parading as scientists. That has NOTHING to do with atheism, secularism or whatever.
    I am an eminently qualified scientist and I have the greatest respect for the 'man in the street' that is paying for all research either in their taxes or the products they buy.
    I also find that they can ask very intuitive questions that we scientists may have overlooked or taken for granted.
    I have to admit that the people parading as scientists ... and swallowing the idea that they are Pondkind with selected damaging mutations ... does bring a wry smile to my lips occasionally.:)


  • #3230
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Thanks, doc :) I had begun to forgot what it's like to get a curious question answered in an informative way. *sheds tear* :P
    ... or an answer that has more qualifications and obfuscations than you could shake a stick at.


  • #3231
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... or an answer that has more qualifications and obfuscations than you could shake a stick at.

    shush, grown ups are talking :P

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #3232
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    koth wrote: »
    Then why did they document you link to cite the flagellum as irreducibly complex? are you saying that the document you linked to is wrong for the reasons stated in the video?


    But evolution works with regard to the entire organism not with regard to some possible organism that it may turn into down the line. If it was to work the way you suggested then it wouldn't adapt to the environment around it.


    So non functioning eyes will kill a baby? :confused:
    ... it certainly wouldn't help if it was a baby Lion.
    .. a tiny piece of the heart not functioning as it should, can kill ... or a critical biomolecule missing from a life-critical cascade will also kill ... but there are many redundancy back up systems intelligently built into living creatures ... which is itself indicative of further intelligent design.


  • #3233
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    Living processes are able to achieve and need to achieve an enantiopure compound every time ... using an enentioselective enzyme that is itself enantiopure ... a real 'chicken and egg' situation.
    ... enantiomer excess doesn't qualify in living processes!!!:)
    Can't access papers here but see:
    http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2004/CC/.com
    Crystallisation of coexisting racemic amino acids, whereby one crystallises and causes the others of the same chirality to crystallise. Leaving an enantiomer excess of 100 %.


  • #3234
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    ... it certianly wouldn't help if it was a baby Lion.
    .. a tiny piece of the heart not functioning as it should, can kill ... or a critical biomolecule missing from a life-critical cascade will also kill ... but there are many redundancy back up systems intelligently built into living creatures ... which is itself indicative of further intelligent design.

    So the short of it is that you misspoke and an incorrect and is no guarantee that it is a fatal problem for the child/lion/zebra etc.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #3235
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    ... or an answer that has more qualifications and obfuscations than you could shake a stick at.
    You think that explanation was difficult to understand? Please tell me which bits confused you. Was it all of it?


  • #3236
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    J C wrote: »
    I am an eminently qualified scientist and I have the greatest respect for the 'man in the street' that is paying for all research either in their taxes or the products they buy.
    I also find that they can ask very intuitive questions that we scientists may have overlooked or taken for granted.
    I have to admit that the people parading as scientists ... and swallowing the idea that they are Pondkind with selected damaging mutations ... does bring a wry smile to my lips occasionally.:)
    You've gone from 'conventional' to 'eminent'. Get a promotion?


  • #3237
    ManMade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 474 ✭✭ManMade


    J C wrote: »
    I am an eminently qualified scientist and I have the greatest respect for the 'man in the street' that is paying for all research either in their taxes or the products they buy.
    I also find that they can ask very intuitive questions that we scientists may have overlooked or taken for granted.
    I have to admit that the people parading as scientists ... and swallowing the idea that they are Pondkind with selected damaging mutations ... does bring a wry smile to my lips occasionally.:)
    What science degree do you have and what university?


  • #3238
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    Can't access papers here but see:
    http://pubs.rsc.org/en/Content/ArticleLanding/2004/CC/.com
    Crystallisation of coexisting racemic amino acids, whereby one crystallises and causes the others of the same chirality to crystallise. Leaving an enantiomer excess of 100 %.
    In this case racemic D,L-asparagine with enantiomeric excess caused enantiomeric excess of other coexisting racemic D,L-amino acids during recrystallization ...
    It induced both D and L enantiomeric excess ... depending on whether the enantiomeric excess of the Asn was D or L, in the first place ... whereas L enantiopure AAs are required in life ... and the Asparagine had to already be in enantiomeric excess itself (either L or D) before it caused any chirality effect.
    Critically, the racemic Asn produced no significant enantiomeric excess in the other AAs.
    The experiment was also carried out at 100 degrees C which doesn't reflect what happens in biological systems.
    Its also self limiting because it crystalises out - and therefore it would need a constant supply of enantio-enriched Asn - because racemic Asn has no chirality effect on other AAs.


  • #3239
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You've gone from 'conventional' to 'eminent'. Get a promotion?
    That would be saying!!
    How about eminent conventional?:D
    The point I was making wasn't about my eminence or otherwise ... I firmly believe there is no such thing as an 'ordinary' person ... we are all extrardinary Beings that are fearfully and wonderfully made with an eternal destiny ... and whether I spent a few more years in College than some other people is moot as far as I'm concerned.
    The hard working man or woman 'in the street' is often doing more important work, than some academic 'windbags' who can barely tie their shoelaces when it comes to practicalities.

    We scientists sometime take ourselves too seriously!!!


  • #3240
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    doctoremma wrote: »
    You think that explanation was difficult to understand? Please tell me which bits confused you. Was it all of it?
    I had no problem understanding what you were saying ... its just that you weren't saying much in favour of Abiogenesis.

    I'll crtique your post as follows:-

    Quote Emma:-
    Biological molecules can be left-handed or right-handed (depending on the physical arrangement of the atoms around a centre). Pairs of molecules that can appear as 'mirror images' of each other are called 'enantiomers'. Life on earth uses exclusively left-handed amino acids (see exception below). The Urey-Miller experiments produced a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids (a 'racemic' mixture). JC is suggesting that this mixture would be incompatible for life to arise, therefore God.
    All correct so far

    However, there are several lines of research examining how one amino acid enantiomer - the left-handed one - could have become to be so prevalent. Many of these are fairly complicated kinetics/chemistry/physics experiments that I won't pretend to understand the maths for. But there are data that, for example, the passage of neutrinos can trigger a little excess of one enantiomer, that can then cause a chain reaction in the mixture to increase the prevalence of that enantiomer. This is called 'symmetry breaking', and there is much debate among all the theories and data about whether it happened as a random or deterministic event. Both are supported experimentally.
    'Its still very early days, with no firm conclusion' could sum this up. Whatever about achieving insignificant amounts of spontaneous enantiomeric excess ... the chain reaction claim is wishful thinking.

    Biologically, we know that some of the machinery for protein production doesn't discriminate between left- and right-handed amino acids. And some bacteria use right-handed amino acids. So that in itself pretty much renders JC's argument useless.
    All of the life-critical processes require enantiopure AAs.
    ... and producing enantiopure AAs is only a very basic part of the CFSI of life.
    The really impossible aspect for spontaneous materialistic processes is the source of the information that assembles the AAs and other biomolecules in specified three-dimensional arrangements to produce functional living organisms.
    In addition to some Bacteria, the platypus, funnel web spider, and cone snail all have D-amino acids in their venom. Isomerases in these organisms are thought to produce the D-amino acids needed for the venom. The fact that the D-AAs are found in venom may not be coincidental, as they are toxic to the normal proteins made from L-AAs in the victims of the venom.
    Although D-amino acids may not be as common as the L variety, they are important in living things and more studies need to be done to find their exact roles.


  • Advertisement
  • #3241
    Lucy8080
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,980 ✭✭✭Lucy8080


    J C wrote: »
    The point is that scientists shouldn't accept either hypothesis without evidence.
    Evolution has been assumed to account for the assumed contiuum between Pondkind and Mankind ... when it is only capable of accounting for speciation/variation within Kinds using pre-existing genetic diversity.
    The Intelligent Design Hypothesis has effectively proven the actions of an Intelligence of Divine proportions by analysing the CFSI of life.

    Hi ,j.c.

    I wasn't asking whose p.o.v. was right /wrong...or who should get funding.

    I only asked why you reject the idea that "life" is self organising ,yet accept that "god" is self organising.

    So ,again, why accept one and ,yet, reject the other?

    What is the difference?

    To clarify, i just want to understand the difference.


Advertisement