Why Evolution is a metaphysical hypothesis
Evopeach
combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
known life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it
is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
system to perform required error correction in the replicative
procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
selection...ie, no evolution.
However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
reproduction.
The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
and such never arise from stochastic processes.
3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
molecule and the genetic code. The closed loop system of the cell
includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
life experiemnt.
4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
of intellect and design in every case.
SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
upon conventions.
GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
to an information based convention.
Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
translations never arise by stochastic means.
All such systems in human experience require an information based
design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
Steven J.
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> known life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it
> is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
any particular account of how life came to be. Second, there is a
difference between "all known life traces back to a single origin of
life" and "there was only a single origin of life." There have been,
throughout the history of life, myriad species (indeed, many entire
orders) with no living descendants today; why should this not be true
of the origin of life? There may have been multiple instances of
abiogenesis of which only one has left descendants that have been
discovered (and, for that matter, there is always the possibility that
life unrelated to humans, pine trees, and _E. coli_ lurks in some
unexplored niche of the Earth's biosphere).
Third, in a sufficiently narrow sense, all phenomena are
experimentally unrepeatable: you cannot even perform the same simple
chemistry experiment twice identically (i.e. with the same molecules,
at the exact same time and place). At a less ridiculously fussy
level, the methods of science are routinely used to reconstruct and
determine the causes of unique events: the entire field of forensic
science, applied to various violent crimes, arsons, aircraft crashes,
etc. proceeds despite the obvious impossibility of killing a victim a
second time, or burning down the same building more than once.
Science requires that observations be repeatable, not that the events
that produced the observed evidence be.
Fourth, on a related note, science works because unique events fall
into classes with enough similarities among them to permit
generalizations. Each aspect of evolutionary history is unique, but
the mechanisms of evolution -- reproduction, inheritance, mutation,
natural selection, etc. -- are ubiquitous. Abiogenesis is not
ubiquitous, but the laws of chemistry are, and hypotheses about the
origin of life are testable.
>
> 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> selection...ie, no evolution.
>
Single strands of RNA in a test tube filled with nucleotides can
reproduce themselves. They have no error detection system and
apparently manage, however crudely, without one.
>
> However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> reproduction.
>
Do you have a citation for the claim that Von Neumann concluded that
such a machine could not be built? Or did he conclude that a
macroscopic version could not be built with the materials available in
the mid-20th century to engineers? Von Neumann worked with computers;
I am not sure that his expertise extended to molecular biology.
>
> The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> and such never arise from stochastic processes.
>
You display such utter confidence.
>
> 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> molecule and the genetic code. The closed loop system of the cell
> includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> life experiemnt.
>
You are not, here, arguing that "evolution is a metaphysical
hypothesis." You are not even arguing that abiogenesis is a
"metaphysical hypothesis." You are arguing that abiogenesis is not
understood, and leaping from that to the conclusion that god-of-the-
gaps assertions about origins are as fruitful a scientific method as
any other.
>
> 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> of intellect and design in every case.
>
That sounds like one of Werner Gitt's "theorems" of information, which
are actually arbitrary postulates. Note that "genetic code" is itself
something of a metaphor; genes do not convey "information" to
ribosomes, but take part in complex chemical reactions that depend on
the interactions of proteins and nucleotides.
>
> SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> upon conventions.
>
> GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> to an information based convention.
>
The cell machinery translates it using a particular protein that
connects to the GCC codon at one end and to an alanine molecule at the
other.
>
> Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
You keep saying that.
>
> All such systems in human experience require an information based
> design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
>
All design efforts, in human experience, require actual material
designers, trial and error, physical materials and mechanisms just to
produce the design, and further physical materials and mechanisms to
instantiate the design. All require designers that originate through
natural means, and are part of a class of roughly similar designers.
Are you sure you want to go there? The disanalogies between human
design and supposed divine creation are rather impressive.
-- Steven J.
Ernest Major
<2246c0d7-ac60-4b63...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
>combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
>lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
>rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all known
>life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it is
>unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
>unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
I don't necessarily speak for others, but I don't make that conclusion.
The universality of the genetic code implies that known, extant, life on
earth had a single ancestor, but does not exclude that abiogenesis did
not occur more than once, with the products of the other occasions
having become extinct (or perhaps just not found - see the recent
Scientific American article "Are Aliens Among Us?"
(<URL:http://www.sciam.com/article/id/are-aliens-among-us>).
I draw no conclusion as to the a priori probability of abiogenesis
occurring on Earth other than it lies between 0 and 1.
Apart from those errors on your part, you then proceed to use a flawed
definition of science. We don't have to be able to create a universe, a
galaxy, a star, a planet, a volcano, an earthquake, or a biosphere, in
the laboratory for their origins to be addressible by science.
Furthermore I don't share your confidence that laboratory abiogenesis is
unachievable.
--
alias Ernest Major
Frank J
(snip)
Greetings almost new person - I see that it has been more than 19
months since your last post-n-run.
Rather than entertain the same old long-refuted arguments against
evolution, what I am interested in is:
Do you think that, whether or not "evolution" is the driver, that
humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs?
Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? (please clearly pick 1 of
the 4 choices - a best guess will do)
Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a
~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it
has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.
Vend
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> lightning, etc.....
What is an embiont? I presume you mean living organism.
In this case you are discussing abiogenesis, not evolution.
>only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> rational basis.
There is no widespread claim that life arose only once.
The claim is that all known organisms have a common ancestor.
> Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> known life and would never arise identically more than once.
This is not known really. It's nearly universal, that is, it's
identical in most organisms but there are some organisms in which it's
a bit different.
Moreover, if there is some selective pressure on it, it could have
evolved multiple times due to convergent evolution.
> Thus it
> is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
The exact configuration of the planets in the solar system 5 minutes
ago is unrepetable, yet astronomy is a science.
And creationism is not metaphysical, it's pseudo-scientific because it
attempts to answer scientific questions by unscientific means.
> 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> selection...ie, no evolution.
Unsupported claim.
> However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> reproduction.
A Von Neumann machine is a kind of computer architetture.
I see no relevance with living organism.
> The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> and such never arise from stochastic processes.
Unsupported claim.
> 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> molecule and the genetic code.
Unsupported claim.
> The closed loop system of the cell
> includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> life experiemnt.
No-one claims that the first living organism was a cell with a
complexity similar to modern ones.
> 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> of intellect and design in every case.
But identification of information transfer systems in natural objects
is arbitrary.
> SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> upon conventions.
Yes.
> GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> to an information based convention.
No the cellular machinery translates it in that way because it's bound
by the laws of chemistry an physics to do so.
> Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> translations never arise by stochastic means.
This is not a Von Neumann machine.
> All such systems in human experience require an information based
> design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
All human-made systems are designed. So?
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life
No.
Case closed.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Mark VandeWettering
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> rational basis.
They assert no such thing. It is entirely possible that many systems of
self replicating biological organisms formed throughout history. What we
see is that all existing life forms appear to be inter-related, sharing a
common genetic code, the pattern of which indicates common ancestry. Whether
it was likely or not is actually pretty hard to determine: indeed, it's
fairly meaningless to speculate.
> Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> known life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it
> is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> unscientific by definition.
Your conclusion doesn't follow.
> Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> selection...ie, no evolution.
You've got this backwards: evolution is simply what we call the pattern of
descent with modification that biological organisms have. Anything we would
call an organism (which reproduces with heritable change) evolves.
> However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny".
No. It isn't. It isn't a definition at all, really, but it has nothing
to do with Von Neumann architectures.
> He concluded
> that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> reproduction.
He did no such thing. In fact, in his work "Theory of Self Reproducing
Automata" was about just how to create such self reproducing machines.
While almost entirely theoretical, he clearly believed in the practical
applications of the theory, and believed that self reproducing machines
represented the best possible means of economically mining asteroids.
> The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> and such never arise from stochastic processes.
Idiocy.
>
> 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> molecule and the genetic code. The closed loop system of the cell
> includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> life experiemnt.
So, because no intelligence has designed it, that means an intelligence must
have designed it?
> 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> of intellect and design in every case.
Which is why calling the genetic code a "code" is a bit of a stretch.
> SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> upon conventions.
>
> GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> to an information based convention.
>
> Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> All such systems in human experience require an information based
> design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
Mark
Dana Tweedy
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> lightning, etc.
Can you provide a citation to any "evo" who makes this claim? And why
would any "evo" do such a thing, as evolution and abiogenesis are
separate fields?
>....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> rational basis.
Abiogenesis is believed to have occurred only once due to the evidence,
not due to any appeal to improbability.
> Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> known life and would never arise identically more than once.
Maybe, maybe not.
> Thus it
> is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
No, the observations need to be repeatable, not the event. Common
mistake on your part.
>
> 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> ability to reproduce itself,
Since that's part of the definition of life, yes.
> have some error detection system and a
> system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> procress.
There's no such requirement.
> Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> selection...ie, no evolution.
Where do you get this idea?
>
> However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> reproduction.
So? Please stop molesting the strawman.
>
> The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> and such never arise from stochastic processes.
Why not?
>
> 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> molecule and the genetic code.
Now it does. Earlier life may not have.
> The closed loop system of the cell
> includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> life experiemnt.
So? Why would one expect the first life forms to have all these?
>
> 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically.
Why?
> They always
> require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> of intellect and design in every case.
So, the black and yellow pattern that sends a code of "danger" in
insects and other venomous animals is the product of "intellect and
design"?
>
> SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> upon conventions.
So?
>
> GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> to an information based convention.
Because of the chemistry of the molecules.
>
> Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> translations never arise by stochastic means.
Never? Have you examined every possible instance?
>
> All such systems in human experience require an information based
> design effort,
"in human experience" is not all there is.
> an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
Lots of assertions here, no real evidence to support any of them.
Fail.
DJT
>
chatnoir
> In message
> <2246c0d7-ac60-4b63-b771-5554bc95a...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> >combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> >lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> >rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all known
> >life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it is
> >unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> >unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> I don't necessarily speak for others, but I don't make that conclusion.
> The universality of the genetic code implies that known, extant, life on
> earth had a single ancestor,
Or the DNA could have formed only one way?:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2007/463.html
headline:
Tiny DNA Molecules Show Liquid Crystal Phases, Pointing Up New
Scenario For First Life On Earth
Nov. 22, 2007
A team led by the University of Colorado at Boulder and the University
of Milan has discovered some unexpected forms of liquid crystals of
ultrashort DNA molecules immersed in water, providing a new scenario
for a key step in the emergence of life on Earth.
CU-Boulder physics Professor Noel Clark said the team found that
surprisingly short segments of DNA, life's molecular carrier of
genetic information, could assemble into several distinct liquid
crystal phases that "self-orient" parallel to one another and stack
into columns when placed in a water solution. Life is widely believed
to have emerged as segments of DNA- or RNA-like molecules in a
prebiotic "soup" solution of ancient organic molecules.
A paper on the subject was published in the Nov. 23 issue of Science.
The paper was authored by Clark, Michi Nakata and Christopher Jones
from CU-Boulder, Giuliano Zanchetta and Tommaso Bellini of the
University of Milan, Brandon Chapman and Ronald Pindak of Brookhaven
National Laboratory and Julie Cross of Argonne National Laboratory.
Nakata died in September 2006.
Since the formation of molecular chains as uniform as DNA by random
chemistry is essentially impossible, Clark said, scientists have been
seeking effective ways for simple molecules to spontaneously self-
select, "chain-up" and self-replicate. The new study shows that in a
mixture of tiny fragments of DNA, those molecules capable of forming
liquid crystals selectively condense into droplets in which conditions
are favorable for them to be chemically linked into longer molecules
with enhanced liquid crystal-forming tendencies, he said.
"We found that even tiny fragments of double helix DNA can
spontaneously self-assemble into columns that contain many molecules,"
Clark said. "Our vision is that from the collection of ancient
molecules, short RNA pieces or some structurally related precursor
emerged as the molecular fragments most capable of condensing into
liquid crystal droplets, selectively developing into long molecules."
Liquid crystals -- organic materials related to soap that exhibit both
solid and liquid properties -- are commonly used for information
displays in computers, flat-panel televisions, cell phones,
calculators and watches. Most liquid crystal phase molecules are rod-
shaped and have the ability to spontaneously form large domains of a
common orientation, which makes them particularly sensitive to stimuli
like changes in temperature or applied voltage.
RNA and DNA are chain-like polymers with side groups known as
nucleotides, or bases, that selectively adhere only to specific bases
on a second chain. Matching, or complementary base sequences enable
the chains to pair up and form the widely recognized double helix
structure. Genetic information is encoded in sequences of thousands to
millions of bases along the chains, which can be microns to
millimeters in length. ... (cont)
Gary Bohn
news:2246c0d7-ac60-4b63...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
I see t.o. is still infested by giant post and run ticks of dubious
background and highly inflated egos sporting enormous black holes.
--
Gary Bohn
Science rationally modifies a theory to fit evidence, creationism
emotionally modifies evidence to fit a specific interpretation of the
bible.
“Colorless green ideas sleep furiously.” — Noam Chomsky, 1957
Evopeach
> On Nov 24, 11:08 am,Evopeach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> > rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> > known life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it
> > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> First, evolutionary theory itself does not deal with nor depend upon
> any particular account of how life came to be.
An absolute falsehood easily recognized by referring to any number of
biology textbooks containing entire chapters on such nonsense as Fox
Miller implications, protonoids, protoenzymes, protoceells where an
entire chain of development is outlined from abiogenesis to man. None
of which remotely deal with stereospecificity for instance which has
never been realized by by any origin of life experiment and cannot
because the entropy status the molecules such as alanine are
indistinguisable between the levo dextro form and such always result
in racemic mixtures of any such products.
Second, there is a
> difference between "all known life traces back to a single origin of
> life" and "there was only a single origin of life." There have been,
> throughout the history of life, myriad species (indeed, many entire
> orders) with no living descendants today; why should this not be true
> of the origin of life?
If one instance resulted in a billion evidences of life all using the
genetic code, rna, dna, etc. in complete commonality how could it be
that many other abiogenesis events left precisely zero evidences. Your
statement is intellectually vacuous and irrational.
There may have been multiple instances of
> abiogenesis of which only one has left descendants that have been
> discovered (and, for that matter, there is always the possibility that
> life unrelated to humans, pine trees, and _E. coli_ lurks in some
> unexplored niche of the Earth's biosphere).
An appeal to the secret land of gobbledy gook imaginary beings is
unscientific, illogical and has no merit.
>
> Third, in a sufficiently narrow sense, all phenomena are
> experimentally unrepeatable: you cannot even perform the same simple
> chemistry experiment twice identically (i.e. with the same molecules,
> at the exact same time and place). At a less ridiculously fussy
> level, the methods of science are routinely used to reconstruct and
> determine the causes of unique events: the entire field of forensic
> science, applied to various violent crimes, arsons, aircraft crashes,
> etc. proceeds despite the obvious impossibility of killing a victim a
> second time, or burning down the same building more than once.
> Science requires that observations be repeatable, not that the events
> that produced the observed evidence be.
A bold faced lie defying the common practice of laboratory research,
peer review, multiple independ lab confirmation which are the hallmark
of acceptable scientific practice. Please do not try this sophomoric
tripe out with me.
>
> Fourth, on a related note, science works because unique events fall
> into classes with enough similarities among them to permit
> generalizations. Each aspect of evolutionary history is unique, but
> the mechanisms of evolution -- reproduction, inheritance, mutation,
> natural selection, etc. -- are ubiquitous. Abiogenesis is not
> ubiquitous, but the laws of chemistry are, and hypotheses about the
> origin of life are testable.
There has never been a successful abiogenesis experiment which
resulted in any carbon based life form with the characteristics of all
life we know about...period.
>
> > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> > ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> > procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> > population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> > selection...ie, no evolution.
>
> Single strands of RNA in a test tube filled with nucleotides can
> reproduce themselves. They have no error detection system and
> apparently manage, however crudely, without one.
RNA is not sustainable life and in a few generations such experiments
fail due to gross replication errors. The RNA contains major elements
of the genetic code mechanism which means you are assuming the source
of information which is the basic problem to begin with.
>
> > However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> > proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> > that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> > layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> > in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> > reproduction.
>
> Do you have a citation for the claim that Von Neumann concluded that
> such a machine could not be built? Or did he conclude that a
> macroscopic version could not be built with the materials available in
> the mid-20th century to engineers? Von Neumann worked with computers;
> I am not sure that his expertise extended to molecular biology.
Are you asserting that it is possible to build a Von Neumann machine
such as the cell with CURRENTLY available tools and
techniques...particularly by evolutionary mechanisms.
>
> > The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> > and such never arise from stochastic processes.
Can you deny that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the
successful cell concerning its operation make it a precise Von Neumann
machine??
>
> You display such utter confidence.
>
> > 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> > molecule and the genetic code. The closed loop system of the cell
> > includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> > molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> > chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> > and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> > themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> > energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> > molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> > necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> > evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> > life experiemnt.
>
> You are not, here, arguing that "evolution is a metaphysical
> hypothesis." You are not even arguing that abiogenesis is a
> "metaphysical hypothesis." You are arguing that abiogenesis is not
> understood, and leaping from that to the conclusion that god-of-the-
> gaps assertions about origins are as fruitful a scientific method as
> any other.
Apparently you have no rhetoricallly intellectual answer to the
statement since you have changed the subject. I am arguing that time
plus energy plus matter will not and never has organized itself into a
von neumann machine absent the input of intelligence from an outside
agent in the form of detailed instructions, codes, plans, knowhow
encapsulating the cognitive thought of said agent. The proposal
otherwise is simply metaphysical.
>
> > 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> > receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> > require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> > of intellect and design in every case.
>
> That sounds like one of Werner Gitt's "theorems" of information, which
> are actually arbitrary postulates. Note that "genetic code" is itself
> something of a metaphor; genes do not convey "information" to
> ribosomes, but take part in complex chemical reactions that depend on
> the interactions of proteins and nucleotides.
An absolute lie and the name is precise and was and has been confirmed
as such many times by all reputable scientists. The code rides on the
chemistry but is not in the chemistry.
>
> > SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> > parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> > upon conventions.
>
> > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> > to an information based convention.
>
> The cell machinery translates it using a particular protein that
> connects to the GCC codon at one end and to an alanine molecule at the
> other.
Yes that is according to the method outlined a communication system
operating with an agreed upon convention and not in compliance with
simple chemistry although chemistry is the matter it rides on.
>
> > Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> > translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> You keep saying that.
Can you furnish a single instance of a system using a code, language,
etc. which can be used by a sender receiver to accomplish any activity
or understanding where a convention has not been introduced and agreed
upon by the sender receiver.
>
> > All such systems in human experience require an information based
> > design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> > cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> > matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> > physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
>
> All design efforts, in human experience, require actual material
> designers, trial and error, physical materials and mechanisms just to
> produce the design, and further physical materials and mechanisms to
> instantiate the design. All require designers that originate through
> natural means, and are part of a class of roughly similar designers.
> Are you sure you want to go there? The disanalogies between human
> design and supposed divine creation are rather impressive.
Oh definitely so!! Now that you have admitted to my premise that all
designs require a designer who imposes his intellectual capacities
onto matter to achieve what matter can never deliver... a functioning
machine, system, software, etc. even in a very simple machine let
alone the von neymann machine.
Do you have any backup players?
>
> -- Steven J.
Evopeach
>
> >1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> >combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> >lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> >rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all known
> >life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it is
> >unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> >unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> I don't necessarily speak for others, but I don't make that conclusion.
> The universality of the genetic code implies that known, extant, life on
> earth had a single ancestor, but does not exclude that abiogenesis did
> not occur more than once, with the products of the other occasions
> having become extinct (or perhaps just not found - see the recent
> Scientific American article "Are Aliens Among Us?"
> (<URL:http://www.sciam.com/article/id/are-aliens-among-us>).
See my prior reply to this vacuous fairyland hidden secrets of the
universe theory.
>
> I draw no conclusion as to the a priori probability of abiogenesis
> occurring on Earth other than it lies between 0 and 1.
Shapiro, Crick, Hoyle, Yockey, Morowitz and otheres have done it for
us absent your input and its infinitely closer to zero.
>
> Apart from those errors on your part, you then proceed to use a flawed
> definition of science. We don't have to be able to create a universe, a
> galaxy, a star, a planet, a volcano, an earthquake, or a biosphere, in
> the laboratory for their origins to be addressible by science.
This is a red herring and strawman because I never referred to any
cosmological detail, volcano, etc. I repeat that a fundamental
requirement of an experiemental result which supposedly confirms a
theory is its repeatability by independent scientists.
> Furthermore I don't share your confidence that laboratory abiogenesis is
> unachievable.
Who cares! You can't point to a single success of such experiment.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Evopeach
Greetings and why not present these refutations which have never been
presented otherwise people wouldn't be spending enourmous resources to
the current period atill tru=ying to have an ouce of success.
And don't instruct me as to what I should answer from your little word
games.
Its your theory that von neumann machines arise stochastically from
non-living matter and that billions of bits of information are added
to a genetic code system by such means although it has never been
observed and is counter to all human experience in science and
technology.
If evos can't experimentally demonstrate and support the most basic
necessary and sufficient conditions for their theory to operate it
hardly matters whatever else they propose.
Evopeach
> On 24 Nov, 18:08,Evopeach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > lightning, etc.....
>
> What is an embiont? I presume you mean living organism.
> In this case you are discussing abiogenesis, not evolution.
>
> >only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> > rational basis.
>
> There is no widespread claim that life arose only once.
> The claim is that all known organisms have a common ancestor.
>
> > Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>
> This is not known really. It's nearly universal, that is, it's
> identical in most organisms but there are some organisms in which it's
> a bit different.
> Moreover, if there is some selective pressure on it, it could have
> evolved multiple times due to convergent evolution.
This is an irrrational circular mumbo jumbo reply. Can you illustrate
a life form that is not carbon based and does not reply on the genetic
code, DNA, RNA, etc.
>
> > Thus it
> > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> The exact configuration of the planets in the solar system 5 minutes
> ago is unrepetable, yet astronomy is a science.
This is a red herring having nothing to do with evolution and
abiogenesis..
>
> And creationism is not metaphysical, it's pseudo-scientific because it
> attempts to answer scientific questions by unscientific means.
>
> > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> > ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> > procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> > population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> > selection...ie, no evolution.
Please tell us how evolution will proceed from first life to now
absent the ability to replicate itself, do so accurately for millions
of generations, survive its own errors by repair. Please give evidence
of a extant life form which evidences absence of these properties.>
Direct observation of reality without exception is rather excellent
support. Do you have any evidence to the contrary to offer?
> Unsupported claim.
>
> > However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> > proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> > that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> > layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> > in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> > reproduction.
>
> A Von Neumann machine is a kind of computer architetture.
> I see no relevance with living organism.
Von Neumann did and others have concurred so who cares what you think.
>
> > The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> > and such never arise from stochastic processes.
>
> Unsupported claim.
>
> > 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> > molecule and the genetic code.
>
> Unsupported claim. You have not a clue so who cares what you believe. Evidently you are not well informed of the basic definition and universality of the genetic code.
>
> > The closed loop system of the cell
> > includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> > molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> > chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> > and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> > themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> > energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> > molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> > necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> > evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> > life experiemnt.
>
> No-one claims that the first living organism was a cell with a
> complexity similar to modern ones.
Precisely what do they claim??
>
> > 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> > receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> > require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> > of intellect and design in every case.
>
> But identification of information transfer systems in natural objects
> is arbitrary.
>
> > SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> > parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> > upon conventions.
>
> Yes.
>
> > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> > to an information based convention.
>
> No the cellular machinery translates it in that way because it's bound
> by the laws of chemistry an physics to do so.
>
> > Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> > translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> This is not a Von Neumann machine. Of course it is and you haven't a clue as to his precise work and defintions on the subject.
Steven J.
> On Nov 24, 12:01 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 24, 11:08 am,Evopeach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > > lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> > > rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> > > known life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it
> > > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> > > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> > First, evolutionary theory itself does not deal with nor depend upon
> > any particular account of how life came to be.
>
> An absolute falsehood easily recognized by referring to any number of
> biology textbooks containing entire chapters on such nonsense as Fox
> Miller implications, protonoids, protoenzymes, protoceells where an
> entire chain of development is outlined from abiogenesis to man. None
> of which remotely deal with stereospecificity for instance which has
> never been realized by by any origin of life experiment and cannot
> because the entropy status the molecules such as alanine are
> indistinguisable between the levo dextro form and such always result
> in racemic mixtures of any such products.
>
It seems to me that a creationist or ID proponent would wish to
distinguish "evolutionary theory" from "the entire field of biology,"
and perhaps even to distinguish "the entire field of biology" from
"what biology textbooks contain." The theory of evolution deals with
common descent with modification of life once it exists, and with the
mechanisms through which this happens. How life originated (or,
indeed, if it originated at all, as opposed to -- as Hoyle once
proposed -- having always existed in an eternal, steady-state
universe) is not relevant to how it subsequently evolved. It's been
too long since I read a biology textbook, so I cannot assess the truth
of your claim that such texts contain "entire chapters" on abiogenesis
research, but again, biology textbooks do cover topics not strictly
included in evolutionary theory.
"Origin of life" experiments, if I understand correctly, are attempts
to study quite small parts of possible processes of abiogenesis. They
are not, thus far, attempts to produce life from raw materials in one
fell swoop. Pharmaceutical companies do research on rather a larger
budget than abiogenesis researchers and have had rather greater
successes in deracemization of synthesized amino acids. Whether their
methods have any direct relevance to abiogenesis I do not know, but
they show that chemical processes can attain this end in the inorganic
synthesis of amino acids.
>
> > Second, there is a
> > difference between "all known life traces back to a single origin of
> > life" and "there was only a single origin of life." There have been,
> > throughout the history of life, myriad species (indeed, many entire
> > orders) with no living descendants today; why should this not be true
> > of the origin of life?
>
> If one instance resulted in a billion evidences of life all using the
> genetic code, rna, dna, etc. in complete commonality how could it be
> that many other abiogenesis events left precisely zero evidences. Your
> statement is intellectually vacuous and irrational.
>
I do not know. At the risk of being "intellectually vacuous and
irrational," I might speculate that other origins of life led to less
efficient life forms that were out-competed for resources and went
extinct without descendants.
>
> > There may have been multiple instances of
> > abiogenesis of which only one has left descendants that have been
> > discovered (and, for that matter, there is always the possibility that
> > life unrelated to humans, pine trees, and _E. coli_ lurks in some
> > unexplored niche of the Earth's biosphere).
>
> An appeal to the secret land of gobbledy gook imaginary beings is
> unscientific, illogical and has no merit.
>
Throughout your post you implicitly assume that what is not known
today cannot possibly be known tomorrow, or next year, or in the next
century -- that current scientific knowledge encompasses all possible
scientific knowledge. This was not true a century ago, or ten years
ago; why do you assume it is true today? The entire domain of the
Archae was unknown a few decades ago. Of course, the Archae appear to
be related to us and to bacteria, but it seems to me that there is a
difference between "imaginary" and "as yet undiscovered."
>
> > Third, in a sufficiently narrow sense, all phenomena are
> > experimentally unrepeatable: you cannot even perform the same simple
> > chemistry experiment twice identically (i.e. with the same molecules,
> > at the exact same time and place). At a less ridiculously fussy
> > level, the methods of science are routinely used to reconstruct and
> > determine the causes of unique events: the entire field of forensic
> > science, applied to various violent crimes, arsons, aircraft crashes,
> > etc. proceeds despite the obvious impossibility of killing a victim a
> > second time, or burning down the same building more than once.
> > Science requires that observations be repeatable, not that the events
> > that produced the observed evidence be.
>
> A bold faced lie defying the common practice of laboratory research,
> peer review, multiple independ lab confirmation which are the hallmark
> of acceptable scientific practice. Please do not try this sophomoric
> tripe out with me.
>
Why not? Haven't you made it to sophomore yet? In any case, which
part of my disquisition is the "bald-faced lie?" Do you dispute that
scientific methods are routinely used to investigate murders, arsons,
and so forth, or do you deny that these are "unique events?" Or is
your quarrel with the statement that science requires that
observations, not the phenomena observed, be repeatable? But that
cannot be the point you dispute, since it does not in any respect defy
multiple laboratory confirmation or peer review.
>
> > Fourth, on a related note, science works because unique events fall
> > into classes with enough similarities among them to permit
> > generalizations. Each aspect of evolutionary history is unique, but
> > the mechanisms of evolution -- reproduction, inheritance, mutation,
> > natural selection, etc. -- are ubiquitous. Abiogenesis is not
> > ubiquitous, but the laws of chemistry are, and hypotheses about the
> > origin of life are testable.
>
> There has never been a successful abiogenesis experiment which
> resulted in any carbon based life form with the characteristics of all
> life we know about...period.
>
Again, I missed the memo stating that science has accomplished
everything that science can accomplish. Note also that in the
paragraph above, I was attempting, however unsuccessfully, to steer
you back to the actual subject of evolution, which has been
demonstrated in the laboratory.
>
> > > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> > > ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> > > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> > > procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> > > population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> > > selection...ie, no evolution.
>
> > Single strands of RNA in a test tube filled with nucleotides can
> > reproduce themselves. They have no error detection system and
> > apparently manage, however crudely, without one.
>
> RNA is not sustainable life and in a few generations such experiments
> fail due to gross replication errors. The RNA contains major elements
> of the genetic code mechanism which means you are assuming the source
> of information which is the basic problem to begin with.
>
Self-assembly of RNA strands does not result in or require protein
assembly. The strands of nucleotides do not function as a code by
themselves, and therefore there is no reason to treat them as
"information." Of course, one might take this to imply that
"information" and "codes" are something that could originate
gradually, rather than all at once and complete.
>
> > > However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> > > proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> > > that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> > > layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> > > in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> > > reproduction.
>
> > Do you have a citation for the claim that Von Neumann concluded that
> > such a machine could not be built? Or did he conclude that a
> > macroscopic version could not be built with the materials available in
> > the mid-20th century to engineers? Von Neumann worked with computers;
> > I am not sure that his expertise extended to molecular biology.
>
> Are you asserting that it is possible to build a Von Neumann machine
> such as the cell with CURRENTLY available tools and
> techniques...particularly by evolutionary mechanisms.
>
No, I was noting that Von Neumann did his theoretical work on Von
Neumann machines back in the mid-20th century.
>
> > > The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> > > and such never arise from stochastic processes.
>
> Can you deny that the necessary and sufficient conditions for the
> successful cell concerning its operation make it a precise Von Neumann
> machine??
>
I can deny that the first successful cell originated in one step, or
that it had no precursors that hovered in the grey area between living
and nonliving matter.
You are, strictly, asserting rather than arguing. You are rather
casually ignoring the point that "design" by itself accomplishes
nothing, indeed does not even exist; design exists only as realized in
material substrates and is instantiated only by physical processes.
Saying that something was done by "intelligence" tells us next to
nothing about how it came to be. Telling us what physical processes
were used to produce it may, on the other hand, suggest ways that it
could come to be even without intelligence, if those physical
processes could exist without being deliberately constructed.
>
> > > 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> > > receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> > > require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> > > of intellect and design in every case.
>
> > That sounds like one of Werner Gitt's "theorems" of information, which
> > are actually arbitrary postulates. Note that "genetic code" is itself
> > something of a metaphor; genes do not convey "information" to
> > ribosomes, but take part in complex chemical reactions that depend on
> > the interactions of proteins and nucleotides.
>
> An absolute lie and the name is precise and was and has been confirmed
> as such many times by all reputable scientists. The code rides on the
> chemistry but is not in the chemistry.
>
Ah. I stand corrected. No, wait, I do not.
>
> > > SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> > > parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> > > upon conventions.
>
> > > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> > > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> > > to an information based convention.
>
> > The cell machinery translates it using a particular protein that
> > connects to the GCC codon at one end and to an alanine molecule at the
> > other.
>
> Yes that is according to the method outlined a communication system
> operating with an agreed upon convention and not in compliance with
> simple chemistry although chemistry is the matter it rides on.
>
Did a gang of commas steal your lunch money when you were a little
kid? You really seem to hate that punctuation mark.
>
> > > Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> > > translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> > You keep saying that.
>
> Can you furnish a single instance of a system using a code, language,
> etc. which can be used by a sender receiver to accomplish any activity
> or understanding where a convention has not been introduced and agreed
> upon by the sender receiver.
>
Perhaps the NSA could help answer that question.
>
> > > All such systems in human experience require an information based
> > > design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> > > cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> > > matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> > > physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
>
> > All design efforts, in human experience, require actual material
> > designers, trial and error, physical materials and mechanisms just to
> > produce the design, and further physical materials and mechanisms to
> > instantiate the design. All require designers that originate through
> > natural means, and are part of a class of roughly similar designers.
> > Are you sure you want to go there? The disanalogies between human
> > design and supposed divine creation are rather impressive.
>
> Oh definitely so!! Now that you have admitted to my premise that all
> designs require a designer who imposes his intellectual capacities
> onto matter to achieve what matter can never deliver... a functioning
> machine, system, software, etc. even in a very simple machine let
> alone the von neymann machine.
>
> Do you have any backup players?
>
Several.
>
-- Steven J.
Kermit
> On Nov 24, 1:09 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 24 Nov, 18:08,Evopeach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > > lightning, etc.....
>
> > What is an embiont? I presume you mean living organism.
> > In this case you are discussing abiogenesis, not evolution.
>
> > >only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> > > rational basis.
>
> > There is no widespread claim that life arose only once.
> > The claim is that all known organisms have a common ancestor.
>
> > > Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> > > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>
> > This is not known really. It's nearly universal, that is, it's
> > identical in most organisms but there are some organisms in which it's
> > a bit different.
> > Moreover, if there is some selective pressure on it, it could have
> > evolved multiple times due to convergent evolution.
>
> This is an irrrational circular mumbo jumbo reply. Can you illustrate
> a life form that is not carbon based and does not reply on the genetic
> code, DNA, RNA, etc.
Are you saying that if Vend cannot give one example, that is evidence
that it is impossible? I suppose we should be flattered that you use
one of us as your ultimate authority on this matter.
Nonetheless, reason dictates that if you make the claim, then you are
obligated to offer support for that assertion, if you want anyone to
find you persuasive.
Please explain your reasoning or, better, give the supporting
evidence, for your claims that :
1. the DNA code is the only possible one, and
2. whether true or not, that it could have only appeared once.
>
>
>
> > > Thus it
> > > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> > > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> > The exact configuration of the planets in the solar system 5 minutes
> > ago is unrepetable, yet astronomy is a science.
>
> This is a red herring having nothing to do with evolution and
> abiogenesis..
>
It has everything to do with your claim that science requires the
event to be repeatable. Is this simply the standard Creationist
handwaving, or did you really not understand that?
>
>
> > And creationism is not metaphysical, it's pseudo-scientific because it
> > attempts to answer scientific questions by unscientific means.
You might want to address this point, since it's the topic of your
heading.
>
> > > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> > > ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> > > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> > > procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> > > population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> > > selection...ie, no evolution.
>
> Please tell us how evolution will proceed from first life to now
> absent the ability to replicate itself, do so accurately for millions
> of generations, survive its own errors by repair.
If the species is well adapted to the environment, then most
deviations will not be advantageous, and will not be selected for.
There may be some random drift.
OTOH, if the environment changes significantly, the species will be
unlikely to be unchanged for millions of generations.
Do you have any counter-examples to either of my two observations?
> Please give evidence
> of a extant life form which evidences absence of these properties.>
Please give one example of a species which has a mechanism to "perform
required error correction in the replicative process". How does that
work, exactly?
> Direct observation of reality without exception is rather excellent
> support. Do you have any evidence to the contrary to offer?
Well, there's reality.
>
> > Unsupported claim.
>
> > > However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> > > proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> > > that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> > > layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> > > in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> > > reproduction.
>
> > A Von Neumann machine is a kind of computer architetture.
> > I see no relevance with living organism.
>
> Von Neumann did and others have concurred so who cares what you think.
He did not conclude that it couldn't be built.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> > > and such never arise from stochastic processes.
>
> > Unsupported claim.
>
> > > 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> > > molecule and the genetic code.
>
> > Unsupported claim. You have not a clue so who cares what you believe. Evidently you are not well informed of the basic definition and universality of the genetic code.
>
> > > The closed loop system of the cell
> > > includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> > > molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> > > chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> > > and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> > > themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> > > energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> > > molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> > > necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> > > evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> > > life experiemnt.
>
> > No-one claims that the first living organism was a cell with a
> > complexity similar to modern ones.
>
> Precisely what do they claim??
Nobody claims that a first cell popped into existence ex nihilo,
except the Creationists. Whatever the development of first life turns
out to be, if it was natural, it was a gradual process. Looking for
the first cell would be like looking for the first French speaker.
When self-replicating processes reached the point at which someone
looking back would say "Let's call these cells", those cells would not
have been modern. Just as evolutionary scientists would not call the
first mammals modern, nor the first reptiles.
Come back when abiogenesis researchers come up with a testable
abiogenesis theory, supported by a wide body of evidence. In the
meanwhile, do you have anything to say about the Theory of Evolution?
>
>
>
> > > 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> > > receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> > > require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> > > of intellect and design in every case.
>
> > But identification of information transfer systems in natural objects
> > is arbitrary.
>
> > > SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> > > parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> > > upon conventions.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> > > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> > > to an information based convention.
>
> > No the cellular machinery translates it in that way because it's bound
> > by the laws of chemistry an physics to do so.
>
> > > Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> > > translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> > This is not a Von Neumann machine. Of course it is and you haven't a clue as to his precise work and defintions on the subject.
>
> > > All such systems in human experience require an information based
> > > design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> > > cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> > > matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> > > physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
>
> > All human-made systems are designed. So?
Are you arguing that humans made the first life? If so, you should
know that the nested hierarchy and the genetic code look nothing like
human design.
Kermit
wf3h
> >
> > First, evolutionary theory itself does not deal with nor depend upon
> > any particular account of how life came to be.
>
> An absolute falsehood easily recognized by referring to any number of
> biology textbooks containing entire chapters on such nonsense as Fox
> Miller implications, protonoids, protoenzymes, protoceells where an
> entire chain of development is outlined from abiogenesis to man. None
> of which remotely deal with stereospecificity for instance which has
> never been realized by by any origin of life experiment and cannot
> because the entropy status the molecules such as alanine are
> indistinguisable between the levo dextro form and such always result
> in racemic mixtures of any such products.
??? how does this speculation cause a dependence of evolution on
abiogenesis? the mere fact someone is speculating on life's origins
does not mean evolution doesn't happen.
you haven't proven the connection.
>
> There has never been a successful abiogenesis experiment which
> resulted in any carbon based life form with the characteristics of all
> life we know about...period.
and there's been no cure for the common cold. you saying one DOESN"T
exist? you saying you know that for sure?
your argument is a non sequitur. evolution happens TODAY. it's
observable. the origin of life happened in the past. there is no
necessary connection, nor have you demonstrated one.
Ernest Major
<c4f18d4c-7dba-4df0...@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Nov 24, 12:12 pm, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>>
>><2246c0d7-ac60-4b63-b771-5554bc95a...@b40g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,Evo
>>peach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>> >1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
>> >combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
>> >lightning, etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
>> >rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all known
>> >life and would never arise identically more than once. Thus it is
>> >unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
>> >unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>>
>> I don't necessarily speak for others, but I don't make that conclusion.
>> The universality of the genetic code implies that known, extant, life on
>> earth had a single ancestor, but does not exclude that abiogenesis did
>> not occur more than once, with the products of the other occasions
>> having become extinct (or perhaps just not found - see the recent
>> Scientific American article "Are Aliens Among Us?"
>> (<URL:http://www.sciam.com/article/id/are-aliens-among-us>).
>
>See my prior reply to this vacuous fairyland hidden secrets of the
>universe theory.
>>
>> I draw no conclusion as to the a priori probability of abiogenesis
>> occurring on Earth other than it lies between 0 and 1.
>
>Shapiro, Crick, Hoyle, Yockey, Morowitz and otheres have done it for
>us absent your input and its infinitely closer to zero.
Probability estimates are model dependent. We don't have a good model of
abiogenesis, and therefore can't produce meaningful estimates of the
probability.
>>
>> Apart from those errors on your part, you then proceed to use a flawed
>> definition of science. We don't have to be able to create a universe, a
>> galaxy, a star, a planet, a volcano, an earthquake, or a biosphere, in
>> the laboratory for their origins to be addressible by science.
>
>This is a red herring and strawman because I never referred to any
>cosmological detail, volcano, etc. I repeat that a fundamental
>requirement of an experiemental result which supposedly confirms a
>theory is its repeatability by independent scientists.
>
I disagree - the strawman is your claim that abiogenesis is beyond the
scope of science. It's not a red herring to point out other phenomena
that would also be excluded from science by your misdefinition; the fact
that you brushed them under the carpet rather than explicitly
identifying them is irrelevant.
>
>> Furthermore I don't share your confidence that laboratory abiogenesis is
>> unachievable.
>
>Who cares! You can't point to a single success of such experiment.
--
Alias Ernest Major
Frank J
> On Nov 24, 12:35 pm, Frank J <f...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 12:08 pm,Evopeach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > (snip)
>
> > Greetings almost new person - I see that it has been more than 19
> > months since your last post-n-run.
>
> > Rather than entertain the same old long-refuted arguments against
> > evolution, what I am interested in is:
>
> > Do you think that, whether or not "evolution" is the driver, that
> > humans are biologically related to (share common ancestors with) dogs?
> > Dogwoods? Both (like some IDers)? Neither? (please clearly pick 1 of
> > the 4 choices - a best guess will do)
>
> > Also, do you agree (as many creationists do) that life on earth has a
> > ~4 billion year history? If not, how long a history do you think it
> > has? Be specific, again, a best guess will do.
>
> Greetings and why not present these refutations which have never been
> presented otherwise people wouldn't be spending enourmous resources to
> the current period atill tru=ying to have an ouce of success.
>
> And don't instruct me as to what I should answer from your little word
> games.
They are not "word games," but simple questions, as any lurker can
see. They can also see that you evaded them.
Did you get the "word games" from FL on the Panda's Thumb, who has
also been evading my simple questions?
>
> Its your theory that von neumann machines arise stochastically from
> non-living matter and that billions of bits of information are added
> to a genetic code system by such means although it has never been
> observed and is counter to all human experience in science and
> technology.
No. That's not my theory, just your caricature of it.
>
> If evos can't experimentally demonstrate and support the most basic
> necessary and sufficient conditions for their theory to operate it
> hardly matters whatever else they propose.
Well apparently you can, so please answer the questions.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evopeach
Yes in particular they propound the tired, falsified, and erroneous
story of how life came forth from purely materialistic causes and that
such balderdash as Fox and Miller experiements confirm such to be
credible. The typical intellectual dishonesty we expect.
>
> "Origin of life" experiments, if I understand correctly, are attempts
> to study quite small parts of possible processes of abiogenesis. They
> are not, thus far, attempts to produce life from raw materials in one
> fell swoop. Pharmaceutical companies do research on rather a larger
> budget than abiogenesis researchers and have had rather greater
> successes in deracemization of synthesized amino acids. Whether their
> methods have any direct relevance to abiogenesis I do not know, but
> they show that chemical processes can attain this end in the inorganic
> synthesis of amino acids.
Actually they don't perform any such separation by ordinary chemical
means unaided by the injection of information via other molecules. The
separation was first performed using deadly nightshade whose dna and
rna does have the ability to change the entropy status, actual weight,
of the dexro form of say alanine by chemical binding with said plant
molecules allowing the levo and dextro yto be 100% chemically
separated. These methods rely on intellectual guidance from the
scientist, information from another molecules rna or dna and thus have
nothing to do with the abiogenesis in abiotic environments. NICE
TRY!!
It depends on the matter at hand. DO you expect to find a unicorn that
can fly in the next 100 years? Are you willing to invest taxpayer
dollars to do the work?
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Third, in a sufficiently narrow sense, all phenomena are
> > > experimentally unrepeatable: you cannot even perform the same simple
> > > chemistry experiment twice identically (i.e. with the same molecules,
> > > at the exact same time and place). At a less ridiculously fussy
> > > level, the methods of science are routinely used to reconstruct and
> > > determine the causes of unique events: the entire field of forensic
> > > science, applied to various violent crimes, arsons, aircraft crashes,
> > > etc. proceeds despite the obvious impossibility of killing a victim a
> > > second time, or burning down the same building more than once.
> > > Science requires that observations be repeatable, not that the events
> > > that produced the observed evidence be.
>
> > A bold faced lie defying the common practice of laboratory research,
> > peer review, multiple independ lab confirmation which are the hallmark
> > of acceptable scientific practice. Please do not try this sophomoric
> > tripe out with me.
>
> Why not? Haven't you made it to sophomore yet? In any case, which
> part of my disquisition is the "bald-faced lie?" Do you dispute that
> scientific methods are routinely used to investigate murders, arsons,
> and so forth, or do you deny that these are "unique events?" Or is
> your quarrel with the statement that science requires that
> observations, not the phenomena observed, be repeatable? But that
> cannot be the point you dispute, since it does not in any respect defy
> multiple laboratory confirmation or peer review.
Thanks for the promo for ID which is a precise analogy to forensic
science in that evidence after the fact either implies an intelligent
cause or an accident.
The frauds of free fission in your bathtub and the korean clonerboys
would love your approach to science...just send me the data/
observatons and your lab book...I won't worry about repeating the
experiement and getting confirmatory data ...I trust you!!!!!!!!!!>
> ...
>
> read more >>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Vend
> On Nov 24, 1:09 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 24 Nov, 18:08,Evopeach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > > lightning, etc.....
>
> > What is an embiont? I presume you mean living organism.
> > In this case you are discussing abiogenesis, not evolution.
>
> > >only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> > > rational basis.
>
> > There is no widespread claim that life arose only once.
> > The claim is that all known organisms have a common ancestor.
>
> > > Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> > > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>
> > This is not known really. It's nearly universal, that is, it's
> > identical in most organisms but there are some organisms in which it's
> > a bit different.
> > Moreover, if there is some selective pressure on it, it could have
> > evolved multiple times due to convergent evolution.
>
> This is an irrrational circular mumbo jumbo reply.
Please explain.
> Can you illustrate
> a life form that is not carbon based and does not reply on the genetic
> code, DNA, RNA, etc.
What do you mean by 'illustrate' ?
> > > Thus it
> > > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> > > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> > The exact configuration of the planets in the solar system 5 minutes
> > ago is unrepetable, yet astronomy is a science.
>
> This is a red herring having nothing to do with evolution and
> abiogenesis..
You claimed "anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
unscientific by definition".
I provided a counter-example which shows that unrepetable events can
nevertheless studied scientifically.
> > And creationism is not metaphysical, it's pseudo-scientific because it
> > attempts to answer scientific questions by unscientific means.
>
> > > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> > > ability to reproduce itself, have some error detection system and a
> > > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> > > procress. Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> > > population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> > > selection...ie, no evolution.
>
> Please tell us how evolution will proceed from first life to now
> absent the ability to replicate itself,
The first living organisms must have had the ability to replicate
themselves, by definition.
> do so accurately for millions
> of generations, survive its own errors by repair.
There is no need of an error repair mechanism.
In fact, evolution actually proceeds due to mutations, which are
mostly replication errors.
> Please give evidence
> of a extant life form which evidences absence of these properties.>
Viruses lack any error repair mechanism, as far as I know.
Anyway, any modern life form is the result of approx. 3.8 billions of
years of evolution since the first life form, thus you can't expect to
find the same simple structures of the first life forms in the modern
ones.
> Direct observation of reality without exception is rather excellent
> support. Do you have any evidence to the contrary to offer?
Sorry?
> > Unsupported claim.
>
> > > However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> > > proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> > > that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> > > layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> > > in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> > > reproduction.
>
> > A Von Neumann machine is a kind of computer architetture.
> > I see no relevance with living organism.
>
> Von Neumann did and others have concurred so who cares what you think.
Please provide some reference.
> > > The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> > > and such never arise from stochastic processes.
>
> > Unsupported claim.
>
> > > 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> > > molecule and the genetic code.
>
> > Unsupported claim. You have not a clue so who cares what you believe. Evidently you are not well informed of the basic definition and universality of the genetic code.
>
> > > The closed loop system of the cell
> > > includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> > > molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> > > chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> > > and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> > > themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> > > energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> > > molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> > > necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> > > evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> > > life experiemnt.
>
> > No-one claims that the first living organism was a cell with a
> > complexity similar to modern ones.
>
> Precisely what do they claim??
That a molecule or a small set of molecule appeared with the property
of catalyzing the formation of inperfect copies of themselves.
A known molecule that does this is RNA: if you put a single strand RNA
chain in a solution with RNA nucleotides, many copies of the RNA chain
will form.
> > > 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> > > receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> > > require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> > > of intellect and design in every case.
>
> > But identification of information transfer systems in natural objects
> > is arbitrary.
>
> > > SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> > > parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> > > upon conventions.
>
> > Yes.
>
> > > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> > > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> > > to an information based convention.
>
> > No the cellular machinery translates it in that way because it's bound
> > by the laws of chemistry an physics to do so.
>
> > > Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> > > translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> > This is not a Von Neumann machine. Of course it is and you haven't a clue as to his precise work and defintions on the subject.
Please provide a definition and a reference.
mcv
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> lightning,
Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
> etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> known life and would never arise identically more than once.
That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
> Thus it
> is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
is automatically metaphysical.
> 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> ability to reproduce itself,
This is correct (finally!).
> have some error detection system
Why?
> and a
> system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> procress.
Again, why? Why do errors need to be corrected? They don't. It is exactly
those errors on which evolution depends. Without mutations, we wouldn't
have gotten beyong that initial primordial life. So be thankful for
reproductive errors.
> Otherwise the organism cannot develop a sustainable
> population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> selection...ie, no evolution.
What you need for evolution to occur, is reproduction and errors during
that reproduction. Ofcourse those errors shouldn't be too common and
too extreme, because then any beneficial mutation would be destroyed
by harmful mutations before it gets the chance to spread through the
population. But some mutation is necessary.
> However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> reproduction.
See, the mistake that your entire argument depends on, is that the
reproduction needs to be error-free. Ideal, error-free Von Neumann
machines have the advantage that they can reproduce without ever
accidentallly evolving into something else. If it did have errors,
while most of those errors would be harmful, every now and then an
error would add something useful to the existing design, and it'd
eventually evolve into something new, and arguably be a new, evolving
lifeform.
The impossibility of a perfect Von Neumann machine is not on the
creationist side of the argument.
> The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> and such never arise from stochastic processes.
No it wasn't, because it didn't have the error correction. And it's a
good thing it didn't because we are the result of those errors.
> 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> of intellect and design in every case.
>
> SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> upon conventions.
A scream, on the other hand, is pretty universal.
> GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> to an information based convention.
No, it reads and constructs in a way that simply works, because if it
didn't work, it wouldn't have survived for so long. And the genetic code
results in the correct molecule being created because an organism with
that molecule in its body has a greater chance of survival, therefore a
code that for whatever reason happens to result in that molecule being
created has a greater chance of being passed on to the next generation.
At no point is any sort of convention or agreement necessary.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
Desertphile
<keato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
What are "the evos?"
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Martin Kaletsch
> On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 09:08:59 -0800 (PST), Evopeach
> <keato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
>
> What are "the evos?"
Weren't they in the third Starwars movie?
--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Evopeach
>
>
> > > > 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> > > > receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> > > > require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> > > > of intellect and design in every case.
>
> > > But identification of information transfer systems in natural objects
> > > is arbitrary.
>
> > > > SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> > > > parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> > > > upon conventions.
>
> > > Yes.
>
> > > > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> > > > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> > > > to an information based convention.
>
> > > No the cellular machinery translates it in that way because it's bound
> > > by the laws of chemistry an physics to do so.
>
> > > > Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> > > > translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> > > This is not a Von Neumann machine. Of course it is and you haven't a clue as to his precise work and defintions on the subject.
>
> Please provide a definition and a reference.
On the Viability of Self-reproducing Classical Machines
Virgil Griffith, Doyne Farmer1, Ole Peters1
August 23, 2005
Santa Fe Institute REU Paper
Abstract
In the early 1950's John von Neuman was investigating self-
reproduction of analog
machines from a "sea of parts." For simplicity, he assumed an
idealized error-free
environment and eventually developed a self-reproducing Cellular
Automaton. John von
Neumann's 29 stage 200,000 cell self-reproducing machine (as well as
other selfreproducing
CA's) was complex and extremely brittle to any noise in the
environment.
Given its extreme sensitivity to noise, Von Neuman's model is
unrealistic for any physical
machine, and is also less interesting as it makes evolution
impossible.
This leads to the question of what are the necessary conditions to
achieve self-reproduction
in a stochastic environment in which there are errors in reproduction.
We developed a
simplified model to study when it is possible for a machine to copy
itself with enough
fidelity to be viable. One worries that if a machine is too
complicated, and the noise is too
high, there will be an error catastrophe in which the machine cannot
reproduce sufficiently
accurate copies to sustain itself. We make an estimate of the critical
error threshold under a
given set of assumptions about the fitness function characterizing the
machines and their
>
>
>
> > > > All such systems in human experience require an information based
> > > > design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> > > > cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> > > > matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> > > > physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
>
> > > All human-made systems are designed. So?- Hide quoted text -
Evopeach
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > lightning,
>
> Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
> entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
> if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
simple life form. That for which no viable cause can be directly or
indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
have occurred. Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
its simple to complex predictions. There is no viable or remotely
believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>
> > etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> > rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>
> That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
> the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
> and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
> point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
> niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
> completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
> existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
> first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
Luckily it left no fossil evidence of any kind, in fact no evidence of
any kind anywhere..not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
>
> > Thus it
> > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
> secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
> lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
> with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
> observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
> the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
> environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
> probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
> for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
> is automatically metaphysical.
Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
>
> > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> > ability to reproduce itself,
>
> This is correct (finally!).
>
> > have some error detection system
>
> Why?
>
> > and a
> > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> > procress.
>
> Again, why? Why do errors need to be corrected? They don't. It is exactly
> those errors on which evolution depends. Without mutations, we wouldn't
> have gotten beyong that initial primordial life. So be thankful for
> reproductive errors.
YOu are uninformed to the point of abysmal ignorance. Try reading
Exons, INtons and Talking Genes by Wills, or any standard text on teh
subject of cells. Ever hear of DNA and RNA polymerase which is
ubiquitous in life as trhe error repair mechanism in self replication.
Stasis is the main course of replication with passed through errors of
any kind the motable and rare exception.
You are merely asserting such because you can't even propose what it
was to begin with. Woese and many otheres have puzzled over how any
error prone first life could make enzymes and proteins or any cellular
machinery required to survive more than a few generations. YOu need
to do a lot of detailed reading.
>
> > 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> > receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> > require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> > of intellect and design in every case.
>
> > SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> > parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> > upon conventions.
>
> A scream, on the other hand, is pretty universal. Very unscientific and quite stupid.
>
> > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> > to an information based convention.
>
> No, it reads and constructs in a way that simply works, because if it
> didn't work, it wouldn't have survived for so long. And the genetic code
> results in the correct molecule being created because an organism with
> that molecule in its body has a greater chance of survival, therefore a
> code that for whatever reason happens to result in that molecule being
> created has a greater chance of being passed on to the next generation.
> At no point is any sort of convention or agreement necessary.
therefore a code that for whatever reason happens to result ...I vote
this as the most ignorant rant to date...totally meaningless and
irrational.
Can you nominate a code of communication, any code, that does not
require an agreement of translation and conventional understanding
between sender and receiver in the real world?
The Morse CODE could be used by sound, sight, feel on a rope for
instance but only when the receiver knows the code would they conclude
PERIL.
The cell uses phsiochemical feel, shape, and translation algorithmic
action to know which amino acid is directed by a particular
codon...there is no pure chemical reaction indicated by the
codon...period.
Evopeach
AN interesting paper with citations............http://idthink.net/biot/
error/index.html on error correction in cell biology.
Tom McDonald
<snip>
> Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
There would be less of it if you stopped posting great gobs of it.
Free Lunch
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<c6ac2920-6ced-4086...@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
>> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
>> > lightning,
>>
>> Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
>> entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
>> if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>
>I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
>evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
>simple life form.
Even if your first contention were true, which it appears not to be,
your conclusion is based on faulty reasoning -- unless you are playing
silly buggers and telling us there is no life today.
...
Al
>
> On the Viability of Self-reproducing Classical Machines
> Virgil Griffith, Doyne Farmer1, Ole Peters1
> August 23, 2005
> Santa Fe Institute REU Paper
> Abstract
> In the early 1950's John von Neuman was investigating self-
> reproduction of analog
> machines from a "sea of parts." For simplicity, he assumed an
> idealized error-free
> environment and eventually developed a self-reproducing Cellular
> Automaton. John von
> Neumann's 29 stage 200,000 cell self-reproducing machine (as well as
> other selfreproducing
> CA's) was complex and extremely brittle to any noise in the
> environment.
> Given its extreme sensitivity to noise, Von Neuman's model is
> unrealistic for any physical
> machine, and is also less interesting as it makes evolution
> impossible.
You do realize it was all a big arse thought expirement don't you?
Very much a "what if" to draw analogies to life for, but flawed in how
it related to life. The VonNeuman Machine idea does highlight some of
the problems life must have overcome, but not all of the VonNeuman
machine's problems would be the same as Life's problems.
If life WAS designed, then it would be closer to VonNeuman machines.
Timberwoof
<df0eb7bd-9cc4-4360...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Al <alw...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
The devices described in this thought experiment are not Von Neumann
machines. That is a technical term in computer science; it refers to a
particular computer architecture. (Until lately, just about any computer
you are likely to use is a Von Neumann machine.)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.
Steven J.
> On Nov 24, 11:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > It seems to me that a creationist or ID proponent would wish to
> > distinguish "evolutionary theory" from "the entire field of biology,"
> > and perhaps even to distinguish "the entire field of biology" from
> > "what biology textbooks contain." The theory of evolution deals with
> > common descent with modification of life once it exists, and with the
> > mechanisms through which this happens. How life originated (or,
> > indeed, if it originated at all, as opposed to -- as Hoyle once
> > proposed -- having always existed in an eternal, steady-state
> > universe) is not relevant to how it subsequently evolved. It's been
> > too long since I read a biology textbook, so I cannot assess the truth
> > of your claim that such texts contain "entire chapters" on abiogenesis
> > research, but again, biology textbooks do cover topics not strictly
> > included in evolutionary theory.
>
> Yes in particular they propound the tired, falsified, and erroneous
> story of how life came forth from purely materialistic causes and that
> such balderdash as Fox and Miller experiements confirm such to be
> credible. The typical intellectual dishonesty we expect.
>
There is no "story of how life came forth." There are a number of
avenues of inquiry, and the Miller experiments represent initial steps
along one of them. One can either assume that the matter is
unsolvable, that current ignorance will never be substantially
lessened, and invoke a "Designer" of unknown motives, methods, and
abilities who is simply assumed to have whatever characteristics are
necessary to solve the problem. Or one can try to find causes that
can be understood and incorporated into actual, testable theories:
"natural" causes.
>
> > "Origin of life" experiments, if I understand correctly, are attempts
> > to study quite small parts of possible processes of abiogenesis. They
> > are not, thus far, attempts to produce life from raw materials in one
> > fell swoop. Pharmaceutical companies do research on rather a larger
> > budget than abiogenesis researchers and have had rather greater
> > successes in deracemization of synthesized amino acids. Whether their
> > methods have any direct relevance to abiogenesis I do not know, but
> > they show that chemical processes can attain this end in the inorganic
> > synthesis of amino acids.
>
> Actually they don't perform any such separation by ordinary chemical
> means unaided by the injection of information via other molecules. The
> separation was first performed using deadly nightshade whose dna and
> rna does have the ability to change the entropy status, actual weight,
> of the dexro form of say alanine by chemical binding with said plant
> molecules allowing the levo and dextro yto be 100% chemically
> separated. These methods rely on intellectual guidance from the
> scientist, information from another molecules rna or dna and thus have
> nothing to do with the abiogenesis in abiotic environments. NICE
> TRY!!
>
I have this sneaking suspicion that you don't actually understand what
you just wrote above ("entropy status?" "actual weight?"), and are
hoping that by stringing big words together a sound argument will
spontaneously materialize. Far be it from me to assert that this is
impossible, but your particular method does not seem to be working.
"Information" is something humans ascribe to molecules; DNA or RNA or
enzymes have "information" because we choose to regard them that way.
"Information" can be usefully ascribed to all sorts of phenomena, but
that does not imply that some nonphysical psychic substance
objectively accompanies the molecules.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Throughout your post you implicitly assume that what is not known
> > today cannot possibly be known tomorrow, or next year, or in the next
> > century -- that current scientific knowledge encompasses all possible
> > scientific knowledge. This was not true a century ago, or ten years
> > ago; why do you assume it is true today? The entire domain of the
> > Archae was unknown a few decades ago. Of course, the Archae appear to
> > be related to us and to bacteria, but it seems to me that there is a
> > difference between "imaginary" and "as yet undiscovered."
>
> It depends on the matter at hand. DO you expect to find a unicorn that
> can fly in the next 100 years? Are you willing to invest taxpayer
> dollars to do the work?
>
An alicorn would be rather more conspicuous than some analog to
bacteria lurking in, e.g. underground or undersea niches. And I would
not be terribly interested in funding a search for prokaryotes
unrelated to known life. I have no particular expectation that any
such thing exists to be found; if it existed it quite possibly went
extinct in well before the Cambrian. My point was simply that it's
rather difficult to prove that no such thing exists (and no doubt if
it turned up, creationists and IDers would promptly announce that, by
not fitting into the consistent nested hierarchy of known life, it
falsified "Darwinism."
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Why not? Haven't you made it to sophomore yet? In any case, which
> > part of my disquisition is the "bald-faced lie?" Do you dispute that
> > scientific methods are routinely used to investigate murders, arsons,
> > and so forth, or do you deny that these are "unique events?" Or is
> > your quarrel with the statement that science requires that
> > observations, not the phenomena observed, be repeatable? But that
> > cannot be the point you dispute, since it does not in any respect defy
> > multiple laboratory confirmation or peer review.
>
> Thanks for the promo for ID which is a precise analogy to forensic
> science in that evidence after the fact either implies an intelligent
> cause or an accident.
>
No. ID seeks to identify "design" by ruling out all known natural
causes, which would require, at a minimum, actually knowing all
possible natural causes and all the possible ways they might work
together. Forensic science seeks to find the natural cause --
including known sorts of intelligent agents -- that best fits the
evidence, not to absolutely rule out all known and unknown
alternatives. Arsonists, for example, are a class of causes with
known properties (known methods with known particular effects, known
motives, etc.).
>
> The frauds of free fission in your bathtub and the korean clonerboys
> would love your approach to science...just send me the data/
> observatons and your lab book...I won't worry about repeating the
> experiement and getting confirmatory data ...I trust you!!!!!!!!!!
>
This last paragraph is senseless. It would be as sensible for me to
complain that such frauds would love YOUR approach to science: trust
us, we're intelligent agents, so we must be capable of anything! It
is precisely natural causes that are subject to testing and repeated
observations.
>
-- [snip]
>
-- Steven J.
wf3h
> On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >
> > Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
> > entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
> > if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>
> I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
> evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> simple life form
you have confused cause and effect.
evolution is a fact. it's happening today and we can observe it.
therefore you're denying reality. so you have a choice: cling to your
religion and assert that reality doesn't exist, or modify your
religious beliefs.
your denial is not surprising; religious fanaticism often forces one
into untenable positions.
. That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> have occurred. Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
> its simple to complex predictions. There is no viable or remotely
> believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
we don't know how abiogenesis happened. speculation is not proof.
you're in the position of arguing that, since the cause of disease was
unknown in 1850, then disease didnt exist.
not very logical...but typical of religious fanatics.
>
>
> > That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
> > the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
> > and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
> > point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
> > niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
> > completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
> > existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
> > first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
>
> Luckily it left no fossil evidence of any kind, in fact no evidence of
> any kind anywhere..not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
> could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
uh...life has been on earth for 3.8B years. its start was organic
chemistry since we are organic beings. why type of 'evidence' would
you like? you're asking the equivalent of pouring a cup of chicken
soup in the backyard, and waiting 3.8B years to see if it's still
chicken soup
again...not logical, but typical of religious fanatics.
>
> >
> > Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
> > secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
> > lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
> > with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
> > observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
> > the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
> > environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
> > probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
> > for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
> > is automatically metaphysical.
>
> Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
you want a fairy tale? how about this: "the bible is literally true'
now THERE'S a meaningless story.
> >
> > No it wasn't, because it didn't have the error correction. And it's a
> > good thing it didn't because we are the result of those errors.
>
> You are merely asserting such because you can't even propose what it
> was to begin with. Woese and many otheres have puzzled over how any
> error prone first life could make enzymes and proteins or any cellular
> machinery required to survive more than a few generations. YOu need
> to do a lot of detailed reading.
>
again you're denying reality. virtually EVERY organism has mutations.
you saying mutations don't exist? that they are not heritable? because
we have proof of both.
mcv
> On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
>> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
>> > lightning,
>>
>> Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
>> entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
>> if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>
> I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
> evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> simple life form.
Are you seriously claiming that life doesn't exist? Because it really
sounds like you are. I admit exact definitions of what constitutes life
and what doesn't can be a bit vague about the borders between life and
non-life (like viruses, Von Neumann-machines, etc), but I thought the
evidence of the current existence of life was quite widely accepted.
Now if I can also take for granted that the universe has not existed
forever, but came into existence at some point in the distant past,
either by Big Bang or (some other) act of God, and that just after
its creation, the universe did not yet contain life, then it logically
follows that abiogenesis did occur, either by divine creation or by
complex molecules somehow attaining the ability to copy themselves.
The three premisses that the conclusion that abiogenesis did occur
is based on, are:
1. the universe came into being at some point,
2. the universe did not immediately contain life just after that event,
3. the universe does contain life right now,
If you do not agree with any of these premisses, please let me know.
> That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> have occurred.
Stuff can only exist if we can prove what caused it? So you're not
just denying that life exists, but that most of reality doesn't exist.
You're on a roll here.
> Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
> its simple to complex predictions.
Not at all. Evolution just demands slightly faulty reproduction and
some causal connection between the reproductive code and the resulting
organisms reproductive fitness, and nothing more than that.
Even if life has existed for all eternity, evolution can still occur.
Ofcourse for evolution to actually result in something new, it helps
if the environment of populations of living organisms changes every
now and then, be it the entry of a new predator or competitor in
their environment, a volcanic outburst, an asteroid impact, a new
ice age, or the opening of a new ecological niche.
> There is no viable or remotely
> believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
That doesn't matter to evolution. All that matters is that life
exists.
>> > etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
>> > rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
>> > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>>
>> That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
>> the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
>> and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
>> point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
>> niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
>> completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
>> existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
>> first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
>
> Luckily it left no fossil evidence of any kind, in fact no evidence of
> any kind anywhere..
Fossils are extremely rare. Fossilisation is a rare process, requiring
rather specific circumstances. That's why the LaBrea tar pits and other
fossil hotspots are so popular. Chances of finding fossils of one
particular organism that failed to reproduce are pretty much zero. The
fossils you can find, are the ones of large, stable populations.
> not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
> could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
It's sad, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. It might have been, it
might not, but even if it had, it wouldn't have left any noticable
evidence.
>> > Thus it
>> > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
>> > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>>
>> Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
>> secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
>> lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
>> with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
>> observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
>> the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
>> environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
>> probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
>> for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
>> is automatically metaphysical.
>
> Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
It's so much easier if people just say you're wrong and don't explain
why, isn't it? I'm trying to point out in detail exactly why you are
wrong. Read it, and you might learn something.
>> > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
>> > ability to reproduce itself,
>>
>> This is correct (finally!).
>>
>> > have some error detection system
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> > and a
>> > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
>> > procress.
>>
>> Again, why? Why do errors need to be corrected? They don't. It is exactly
>> those errors on which evolution depends. Without mutations, we wouldn't
>> have gotten beyong that initial primordial life. So be thankful for
>> reproductive errors.
>
> YOu are uninformed to the point of abysmal ignorance. Try reading
> Exons, INtons and Talking Genes by Wills, or any standard text on teh
> subject of cells. Ever hear of DNA and RNA polymerase which is
> ubiquitous in life as trhe error repair mechanism in self replication.
> Stasis is the main course of replication with passed through errors of
> any kind the motable and rare exception.
Some degree of error correction helps to stabilise a population and
allow new genes to spread before they're destroyed by other mutations,
so it makes sense that some degree of error corrections develops
sooner or later, but the essential point about evolution that I'm
trying to get through to you here is that evolution *depends* on
those errors. Ofcourse evolution happens more smoothly if those errors
aren't too common, but if they don't happen at all, evolution grinds
to a halt.
Research into genetic algorithms (which applies the exact principles of
evolution to computer science) has proven that there is a sweet spot
for mutation rates. Too low, and evolution moves too slowly, but too
high, and organisms get crippled by harmful mutations. It is very
interesting that life contains its own mechanism for fine tuning this
mutation rate.
But mutations do need to happen. Once they stop happening, the
population is on an evolutionary dead end. It might survive for
millions of years, but nothing new will develop from it.
>> > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
>> > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
>> > to an information based convention.
>>
>> No, it reads and constructs in a way that simply works, because if it
>> didn't work, it wouldn't have survived for so long. And the genetic code
>> results in the correct molecule being created because an organism with
>> that molecule in its body has a greater chance of survival, therefore a
>> code that for whatever reason happens to result in that molecule being
>> created has a greater chance of being passed on to the next generation.
>> At no point is any sort of convention or agreement necessary.
>
> therefore a code that for whatever reason happens to result ...I vote
> this as the most ignorant rant to date...totally meaningless and
> irrational.
You fail to understand how evolution works. The only law of evolution
is: if it works, it works. It doesn't have to be logical, easy, or
understandable. This is why living organisms are full of overly
complicated mechanisms that get the job done, despite the extreme
complexity of figuring out how they work.
In this particular case, all that counts is that the enzyme that
enhances the organisms survival is produced. Exactly how directly
or indirectly this production happens, doesn't matter. This is
exactly the difference between systems resulting from evolution
and systems that have been designed. A purposeful design should
be understandable, have agreed-upon interfaces and standards.
Direct is better than indirect, and undocumented side effects are
hell, instead of something that can be relied upon.
In evolution, it's all the other way around. Extreme complexity is
the fingerprint of evolution.
> Can you nominate a code of communication, any code, that does not
> require an agreement of translation and conventional understanding
> between sender and receiver in the real world?
Yes. The cries of a baby. The baby did not agree to any standard of
communication with its parents, the parent simply has to figure out
what the cries mean. Is it hungry? Tired? Soiled diaper? A good
parent will figure out what it means, perhaps even understand it
instinctively. But in the end, it works, because a parent who doesn't
understand the needs of the baby will have trouble getting the next
generation on its feet and ready to reproduce when it grows up. And
a baby who communicates in a way that the parent can't figure out
will have a harder time growing up and reproducing. And yet the parent
and baby didn't sit down to agree on a standard of communication,
because if they did, I'm sure the parent would have insisted on
something slightly less noisy.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > > lightning,
>
> > Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
> > entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
> > if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>
> I contend that abiogenesis never occurred
We're here.
We're alive, and surrounded by other living organisms.
Abiogenesis happened, even if you believe that it happened when God
breathed life into dust.
God might have done so 6,000 years ago, or three and a half billion
years ago. For that matter, God might have created the universe ten
seconds ago with all the appearance of a great age. There is no way in
which science can investigate such divine intervention because any
such "explanation" cannot be falsified. If there is no way in which a
proposition can be falsified, there is no way in which science can
investigate it.
Science can only assume a naturalistic process for abiogenesis. If you
don't like that, it's up to you, and you are free to reject science
and the scientific method if you chose. What would be dishonest would
be to reject science and the scientific method, and then claim that
your position is scientific.
> and if it never occurred
> evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> simple life form.
This is a conclusion based on a false premise. Even if God had pouffed
life into dust 6,000 years ago, or three and a half billion years
ago, we know that evolution happens because we can observe it in
action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory.
> That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> have occurred.
Excuse me?
Can you provide a viable cause for God?
Of course not!
We can observe evolution in action. It happened before we understood
the cause.
By this logic gravity does not exist, and if we observe a ball falling
to earth it could not have happened because we can't indicate a "first
cause".
> Evolution demands an abiogenesis event
That abiogenesis event could be God breathing life into dust. All that
matters is that living organisms exist.
> consistent with
> its simple to complex predictions.
Evolution makes no such predictions.
> There is no viable or remotely
> believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
Well, the scientists who actually study the subject disagree with you.
What do you know that they don't?
>
>
>
> > > etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> > > rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> > > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>
> > That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
> > the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
> > and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
> > point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
> > niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
> > completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
> > existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
> > first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
>
> Luckily it left no fossil evidence of any kind, in fact no evidence of
> any kind anywhere..not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
> could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
Convenient for whom? The only people who would possibly find this
convenient are creationists.
>
>
>
> > > Thus it
> > > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> > > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> > Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
> > secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
> > lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
> > with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
> > observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
> > the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
> > environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
> > probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
> > for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
> > is automatically metaphysical.
>
> Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
Meaningless response noted.
This is typical creationist behaviour, by the way, and I suggest that
any lurkers observe what happens when a creationist is corrected on
the gross errors of fact and logic present in their posts. I predict,
based on my observations of creationist behaviour, that this posted
will turn tail and run away in a display of intellectual and moral
cowardice characteristic of creationists rather make a meaningful
response to any of the points raised.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > 2) In order for evolution to proceed the first organism must have the
> > > ability to reproduce itself,
>
> > This is correct (finally!).
>
> > > have some error detection system
>
> > Why?
>
> > > and a
> > > system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> > > procress.
>
> > Again, why? Why do errors need to be corrected? They don't. It is exactly
> > those errors on which evolution depends. Without mutations, we wouldn't
> > have gotten beyong that initial primordial life. So be thankful for
> > reproductive errors.
>
> YOu are uninformed to the point of abysmal ignorance. Try reading
> Exons, INtons and Talking Genes by Wills, or any standard text on teh
> subject of cells. Ever hear of DNA and RNA polymerase which is
> ubiquitous in life as trhe error repair mechanism in self replication.
> Stasis is the main course of replication with passed through errors of
> any kind the motable and rare exception.
>
However, as numerous statistical studies show, the incidence of those
replication errors and mutations is perfectly adequate to account for
the observed rates of evolution.
>
>
> > No it wasn't, because it didn't have the error correction. And it's a
> > good thing it didn't because we are the result of those errors.
>
> You are merely asserting such because you can't even propose what it
> was to begin with. Woese and many otheres have puzzled over how any
> error prone first life could make enzymes and proteins or any cellular
> machinery required to survive more than a few generations. YOu need
> to do a lot of detailed reading.
A somewhat ironic request coming from someone who is evidently
incapable of reading such sources for comprehension.
RF
Ernest Major
<c6ac2920-6ced-4086...@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
>evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
>simple life form. That for which no viable cause can be directly or
>indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
>have occurred. Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
>its simple to complex predictions. There is no viable or remotely
>believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
Are you a Vedic Creationist?
We know that those parts of the universe casually connected to the Earth
were once incapable of supporting life. We know that the Earth now
supports life. So either there's a great (hidden) hole in our
understanding of physics or abiogenesis occurred.
Also, evolution occurs regardless of how life originated - it doesn't
matter whether life on Earth arose by spontaneous abiogenesis, local
panspermia, spontaneous panspermia, directed panspermia, accidental
panspermia, directed abiogenesis, supernatural abiogenesis, or some
other process - the theory of evolution still explains its diversity and
disparity.
Your contention that evolution never occurred is falsified by that fact
that we observe it occurring. You might like to be more precise in what
you're denying.
--
alias Ernest Major
The Last Conformist
wrote:
> In article
> <df0eb7bd-9cc4-4360-b196-5c070c42b...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 11:44 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On the Viability of Self-reproducing Classical Machines Virgil
> > > Griffith, Doyne Farmer1, Ole Peters1 August 23, 2005 Santa Fe
> > > Institute REU Paper Abstract In the early 1950's John von Neuman
> > > was investigating self- reproduction of analog machines from a "sea
> > > of parts." For simplicity, he assumed an idealized error-free
> > > environment and eventually developed a self-reproducing Cellular
> > > Automaton. John von Neumann's 29 stage 200,000 cell
> > > self-reproducing machine (as well as other selfreproducing CA's)
> > > was complex and extremely brittle to any noise in the environment.
> > > Given its extreme sensitivity to noise, Von Neuman's model is
> > > unrealistic for any physical machine, and is also less interesting
> > > as it makes evolution impossible.
>
> > You do realize it was all a big arse thought expirement don't you?
> > Very much a "what if" to draw analogies to life for, but flawed in
> > how it related to life. The VonNeuman Machine idea does highlight
> > some of the problems life must have overcome, but not all of the
> > VonNeuman machine's problems would be the same as Life's problems. If
> > life WAS designed, then it would be closer to VonNeuman machines.
>
> The devices described in this thought experiment are not Von Neumann
> machines. That is a technical term in computer science; it refers to a
> particular computer architecture. (Until lately, just about any computer
> you are likely to use is a Von Neumann machine.)
It is *also* a term for a self-replicating machine. Sometimes words
have more than one meaning, confusing as it may be.
Evopeach
>
> - Show quoted text -
Its close enough to demonstrate that a machine that can replicate
itself from parts it makes itself, detects errors in those processes,
and repairs them is performoing precisely the work we see in the
biological cell machine.
Von Neumann assumed an error free , noise free scenario because he
admitted that the number of parts and the smallest imaginable but
realistic failure or error rates would doom the machine to failure.
One has only to read the Gary Wills book ( certainly an evolutionist
and micro-biologist of acclaim) to see that the cell is strictly a
machine, a factory, and an information storage and retrieval complex
that makes trivial all human design and implimentation efforts. His
emphasis on the information, coding, messaging and interpretation
aspects of the cell machinery and the genetic CODE leave no room for
purely naturalistic, materialist, simple chemical explanations.
Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
richardal...@googlemail.com
So you are saying that because the complexities are far greater than
any which any known intelligent agent has been able to create, they
must have been created by an intelligent agent.
That's a rather better argument *against* an intelligent agent being
involved. After all, human designers try to *avoid* complexity.
Complexity arises when there are many different and isolated design
processes competing with each other within a system - which is why
software bloats as different design teams work on it, and a lot of
software is riddled with redundant and duplicated sub-routines. Such
an outcome is poor design, and occurs because no single programmer has
responsibility for, and knows and understands the whole of the
programme.
>
> Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
What does the fact that you resort to such offensive name-calling tell
us about the weight of your arguments?
RF
Evopeach
> On Nov 25, 8:46 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 24, 11:50 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> -- [snip]
>
> > > It seems to me that a creationist or ID proponent would wish to
> > > distinguish "evolutionary theory" from "the entire field of biology,"
> > > and perhaps even to distinguish "the entire field of biology" from
> > > "what biology textbooks contain." The theory of evolution deals with
> > > common descent with modification of life once it exists, and with the
> > > mechanisms through which this happens. How life originated (or,
> > > indeed, if it originated at all, as opposed to -- as Hoyle once
> > > proposed -- having always existed in an eternal, steady-state
> > > universe) is not relevant to how it subsequently evolved. It's been
> > > too long since I read a biology textbook, so I cannot assess the truth
> > > of your claim that such texts contain "entire chapters" on abiogenesis
> > > research, but again, biology textbooks do cover topics not strictly
> > > included in evolutionary theory.
>
> > Yes in particular they propound the tired, falsified, and erroneous
> > story of how life came forth from purely materialistic causes and that
> > such balderdash as Fox and Miller experiements confirm such to be
> > credible. The typical intellectual dishonesty we expect.
>
> We? Did you coauthor the above with your tapeworm?
Is this your idea of rational, logical, on point rhetorical debate?
Ignorant, ranting sophistry is not particularly impressive>
>
> There is no "story of how life came forth." There are a number of
> avenues of inquiry, and the Miller experiments represent initial steps
> along one of them. One can either assume that the matter is
> unsolvable, that current ignorance will never be substantially
> lessened, and invoke a "Designer" of unknown motives, methods, and
> abilities who is simply assumed to have whatever characteristics are
> necessary to solve the problem. Or one can try to find causes that
> can be understood and incorporated into actual, testable theories:
> "natural" causes.
>
>
> Phooey, one can falsify your misprepresentation by googling the net on origin of life or read the textbook I cited or a number of others. Does Oparin, Fox, Miller, hundreds more click in your wee little brain? There are complete stories of this fairy tale which are well publicized and millions of dollarts spent trying to shore up its crucial elements... all have failed miserably.
You are free to read the description of how the original experiements
were performed by a Swiss German scientists about 100 years ago in
Europe which did separate the equal entropy, mirror image forms of
alanine using the information contained in the DNA & RNA of the deadly
nightshade plant. Weight refers to the altered dextro form by chemical
combination making a centrifige as in centrifical force cabable of
effecting the physical separation.
Non-physical, psychic substance..please show my reference to any such
term.
Take your argument up with say Gary Wills for instance in his
writings. In fact with a bout 99% of evolutionary biologists,
physicists, organic chemists, communications and information engineers
who write on the subjects.
The informatics, communications, codes, translations, tagging, etc.
your own people sold out your argument decades ago and its only more
clearly presented every day.
Please save your strawman self aggrandizing definition for your
moronic cult of true believers. A better but personal definition of
ID is the application of analytical and experimental methods to
discern with statistical near certainly (beyond a reasonable doubt)
that a physical observation of a real event, a physical reality, an
arrangement of matter etc. is the result of an intelligence operating
or is the chance occurrence of matter acting according to natural laws
of the universe. ID inhibits no scientific inquiry of any kind or
method for anyone other than dispensing with such that show no promise
of elucidating a usable result, have been falsified by its methods and
thus persuading say a cult of flogistonites from clinging to theories
which have zero evidences after a hundred years and millions of wasted
manhours and dollar resources. PLease illustrate from ID sourses such
as the DI principals your moronic statement of their
theory...otherwise an apology is in order;.
Forensic science seeks to find the natural cause --
> including known sorts of intelligent agents -- that best fits the
> evidence, not to absolutely rule out all known and unknown
> alternatives. Arsonists, for example, are a class of causes with
> known properties (known methods with known particular effects, known
> motives, etc.).
>
> > The frauds of free fission in your bathtub and the korean clonerboys
> > would love your approach to science...just send me the data/
> > observatons and your lab book...I won't worry about repeating the
> > experiement and getting confirmatory data ...I trust you!!!!!!!!!!
>
> This last paragraph is senseless. It would be as sensible for me to
> complain that such frauds would love YOUR approach to science: trust
> us, we're intelligent agents, so we must be capable of anything! It
> is precisely natural causes that are subject to testing and repeated
> observations.
Their frauds were exposed by repeating their experiments independently
and discovering that their results never came out; precisely what you
have argued is not how science should work.
I have never proposed your silly characterizatoin of ID ..that's your
strawman.
>
> -- [snip]
>
> -- Steven J.- Hide quoted text -
TomS
<261e8764-b409-401d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Evopeach
stated..."
[...snip...]
>One has only to read the Gary Wills book ( certainly an evolutionist
>and micro-biologist of acclaim) to see that the cell is strictly a
>machine, a factory, and an information storage and retrieval complex
>that makes trivial all human design and implimentation efforts. His
>emphasis on the information, coding, messaging and interpretation
>aspects of the cell machinery and the genetic CODE leave no room for
>purely naturalistic, materialist, simple chemical explanations.
What is *your* explanation?
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
er...@swva.net
> On Nov 25, 9:38 pm, Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
(snip)
>
> Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
Not such a wonder when you consider that there really isn't such a
thing as an "Evo Gestapo," except in the fevered imagination of some
twisted anti-intellectuals.
Eric Root
Evopeach
> On Nov 25, 8:10 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > > Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
> > > entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
> > > if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>
> > I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
> > evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> > simple life form
>
> you have confused cause and effect.
And you assume an efffect without any cause...that's a metaphysical
position at best and an untenable rhetorical position. If you have a
cause that can can be scientifically presented, varified, proven to
the commnities standards of proof then bring it forth and you will win
the Nobel prize post haste. Oh wait... that's what your team has been
attempting for a hundred years without a scintilla of result.
>
> evolution is a fact. it's happening today and we can observe it.
> therefore you're denying reality. so you have a choice: cling to your
> religion and assert that reality doesn't exist, or modify your
> religious beliefs.
Please cite these authenticated facts which are not in dispute by your
own community. Please define what evolution has been so
demonstrated ...certainly not macroevolution.
I have not expressed any religious belief so your red herring attempts
of desparation are quite telling of your vacuous argumentation.
>
> your denial is not surprising; religious fanaticism often forces one
> into untenable positions.
>
> . That for which no viable cause can be directly or
>
> > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> > have occurred. Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
> > its simple to complex predictions. There is no viable or remotely
> > believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>
> we don't know how abiogenesis happened. speculation is not proof.
> you're in the position of arguing that, since the cause of disease was
> unknown in 1850, then disease didnt exist.
Rediculous and a known logical fallacy of false choice and false
analogy.
The amusing fact is that your ignorance of scientific history is so
clearly illustrated by picosecond reference to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease illustrating the
1500 year history of scientific understandings of what caused
disease. Are you a real person??
>
> not very logical...but typical of religious fanatics.
Typical of ignorant true believers in cults. I have never expressed
any religious beliefs or terminology herein.
>
>
>
> > > That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
> > > the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
> > > and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
> > > point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
> > > niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
> > > completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
> > > existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
> > > first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
>
> > Luckily it left no fossil evidence of any kind, in fact no evidence of
> > any kind anywhere..not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
> > could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
>
> uh...life has been on earth for 3.8B years. its start was organic
> chemistry since we are organic beings.
PLease demonstrate this assertion with scientific experimental,
demonstrable evidence. No one believes this claptrap anymore whose IQ
is higher than a frozen walnut.
why type of 'evidence' would
> you like? you're asking the equivalent of pouring a cup of chicken
> soup in the backyard, and waiting 3.8B years to see if it's still
> chicken soup
Nope just a series of experiemental results of varifiable lab work
which show organic chemistry in abiotic conditions bringing forth
life. What stands in the way of such a simple inevitable result..not
money, not knowhow surely, not resources...what's the problem???
>
> again...not logical, but typical of religious fanatics.
>
> >
> > > Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
> > > secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
> > > lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
> > > with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
> > > observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
> > > the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
> > > environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
> > > probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
> > > for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
> > > is automatically metaphysical.
>
> > Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
>
> you want a fairy tale? how about this: "the bible is literally true'
Please show me referring to any religious position; otherwise take
your desperate, dogmatic, irrational, illogical personal insults
elsewhere.
>
> now THERE'S a meaningless story.
>
>
>
> > > No it wasn't, because it didn't have the error correction. And it's a
> > > good thing it didn't because we are the result of those errors.
>
> > You are merely asserting such because you can't even propose what it
> > was to begin with. Woese and many otheres have puzzled over how any
> > error prone first life could make enzymes and proteins or any cellular
> > machinery required to survive more than a few generations. YOu need
> > to do a lot of detailed reading.
>
> again you're denying reality. virtually EVERY organism has mutations.
> you saying mutations don't exist? that they are not heritable? because
> we have proof of both.
No I never asserted such anywhere so please refrain from such
fallacies of false attribution if you wish to maintain any
intellectual credibility.
Any intelligent reader can confirm the fact that an organism can
tolerate a miniscule degree of error propogation and survive. Even the
rate of 1 per 3 billion operatons in the cell is almost always either
fatal, neutral, or somatic. In theory there are so called helpful
errors ( largly unknown and undemonstrated). The issue is not whether
errors occur, but rather what is their effect and operation, helpful
or harmful. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that medical
science spends its time attempting to eliminate such errors, cure such
errors, find their genetic source..whyt because they are responsible
for the most terrible death causative diseases.
Where are scientists attempting to accelerate RANDOM mutation in genes
to bring about greater human progress, better genomes, more well
adapted life, improved human conditions, beneficial traits, additional
functionality. Please provide the citations. This in strict deferrence
to genetic engineering which is planned, DESIGNED, intellectually
developed and has zero ransomness....its actually intelligent design
in clear practice.
mcv
That's the problem with some geniuses. They work on too many different
fields, creating all sorts of confusion.
Evopeach
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> >> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> >> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> >> > lightning,
>
> >> Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
> >> entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
> >> if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>
> > I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
> > evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> > simple life form.
>
> Are you seriously claiming that life doesn't exist? Because it really
> sounds like you are. I admit exact definitions of what constitutes life
> and what doesn't can be a bit vague about the borders between life and
> non-life (like viruses, Von Neumann-machines, etc), but I thought the
> evidence of the current existence of life was quite widely accepted.
LIfe exists
>
> Now if I can also take for granted that the universe has not existed
> forever, but came into existence at some point in the distant past,
> either by Big Bang or (some other) act of God, and that just after
> its creation, the universe did not yet contain life, then it logically
> follows that abiogenesis did occur, either by divine creation or by
> complex molecules somehow attaining the ability to copy themselves.
>
> The three premisses that the conclusion that abiogenesis did occur
> is based on, are:
> 1. the universe came into being at some point,
> 2. the universe did not immediately contain life just after that event,
> 3. the universe does contain life right now,
>
> If you do not agree with any of these premisses, please let me know.
OK with me. Whats the point?
>
> > That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> > have occurred.
>
> Stuff can only exist if we can prove what caused it? So you're not
> just denying that life exists, but that most of reality doesn't exist.
Where is the word prove in my post?
>
> You're on a roll here.
>
> > Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
> > its simple to complex predictions.
>
> Not at all. Evolution just demands slightly faulty reproduction and
> some causal connection between the reproductive code and the resulting
> organisms reproductive fitness, and nothing more than that.
What organism, where did it come from, how did it become extant. What
is it that reproduces, mutates, etc.
>
> Even if life has existed for all eternity, evolution can still occur.
> Ofcourse for evolution to actually result in something new, it helps
> if the environment of populations of living organisms changes every
> now and then, be it the entry of a new predator or competitor in
> their environment, a volcanic outburst, an asteroid impact, a new
> ice age, or the opening of a new ecological niche.
>
> > There is no viable or remotely
> > believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>
> That doesn't matter to evolution. All that matters is that life
> exists.
That is of course a metaphysical statement.
>
> >> > etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
> >> > rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> >> > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>
> >> That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
> >> the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
> >> and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
> >> point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
> >> niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
> >> completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
> >> existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
> >> first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
>
> > Luckily it left no fossil evidence of any kind, in fact no evidence of
> > any kind anywhere..
>
> Fossils are extremely rare. Fossilisation is a rare process, requiring
> rather specific circumstances. That's why the LaBrea tar pits and other
> fossil hotspots are so popular. Chances of finding fossils of one
> particular organism that failed to reproduce are pretty much zero. The
> fossils you can find, are the ones of large, stable populations.
Baloney! There are millions of fossils and there are many which are so
totally isolated from any other group either earlier or later that
they remain a mystery to this very day. See the Burgess Shale and
Gould's reflections.
>
> > not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
> > could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
>
> It's sad, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. It might have been, it
> might not, but even if it had, it wouldn't have left any noticable
> evidence.
Very scientific statement...it doesn't matter ...laughable.
>
> >> > Thus it
> >> > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> >> > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> >> Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
> >> secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
> >> lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
> >> with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
> >> observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
> >> the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
> >> environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
> >> probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
> >> for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
> >> is automatically metaphysical.
>
> > Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
>
> It's so much easier if people just say you're wrong and don't explain
> why, isn't it? I'm trying to point out in detail exactly why you are
> wrong. Read it, and you might learn something.
Nope its just such nonsense. Why does it follow that on the vast area
of the earth that all these independent abiogenesisi results would be
competing.
LIfe would prefer zero mutations and its very nearly realized by its
strenuous, complex, systematic attempts to avoid and repair them.
>
> But mutations do need to happen. Once they stop happening, the
> population is on an evolutionary dead end. It might survive for
> millions of years, but nothing new will develop from it.
>
> >> > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> >> > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> >> > to an information based convention.
>
> >> No, it reads and constructs in a way that simply works, because if it
> >> didn't work, it wouldn't have survived for so long. And the genetic code
> >> results in the correct molecule being created because an organism with
> >> that molecule in its body has a greater chance of survival, therefore a
> >> code that for whatever reason happens to result in that molecule being
> >> created has a greater chance of being passed on to the next generation.
> >> At no point is any sort of convention or agreement necessary.
>
> > therefore a code that for whatever reason happens to result ...I vote
> > this as the most ignorant rant to date...totally meaningless and
> > irrational.
>
> You fail to understand how evolution works. The only law of evolution
> is: if it works, it works. It doesn't have to be logical, easy, or
> understandable. This is why living organisms are full of overly
> complicated mechanisms that get the job done, despite the extreme
> complexity of figuring out how they work.
Your science: ..don't worry...be happy..don't wonder...don't
investigate just relax its all so complex.. drink your coolaid and
smile.
>
> In this particular case, all that counts is that the enzyme that
> enhances the organisms survival is produced. Exactly how directly
> or indirectly this production happens, doesn't matter. This is
> exactly the difference between systems resulting from evolution
> and systems that have been designed. A purposeful design should
> be understandable, have agreed-upon interfaces and standards.
> Direct is better than indirect, and undocumented side effects are
> hell, instead of something that can be relied upon.
>
> In evolution, it's all the other way around. Extreme complexity is
> the fingerprint of evolution.
In all my time on the net this is the most rediculous statement ever
posted. The music of Listz, the Mona Lisa, the Pentium IV processor
all being enourmously complex arrangements of matter with purpose are
not actually designed by an intellect because their very complexity
means that the best explanation for their existence is the gradual
rearrangement by pure chance of the matter from which they are made by
natural physical laws unaided by any outside intellect.
Do you know what certifiable means?
>
> > Can you nominate a code of communication, any code, that does not
> > require an agreement of translation and conventional understanding
> > between sender and receiver in the real world?
>
> Yes. The cries of a baby. The baby did not agree to any standard of
> communication with its parents, the parent simply has to figure out
> what the cries mean. Is it hungry? Tired? Soiled diaper? A good
> parent will figure out what it means, perhaps even understand it
> instinctively. But in the end, it works, because a parent who doesn't
> understand the needs of the baby will have trouble getting the next
> generation on its feet and ready to reproduce when it grows up. And
> a baby who communicates in a way that the parent can't figure out
> will have a harder time growing up and reproducing. And yet the parent
> and baby didn't sit down to agree on a standard of communication,
> because if they did, I'm sure the parent would have insisted on
> something slightly less noisy.
>
And such noise contains no information whatsoever. It illlicits on a
search buy an intelligent agent for a range of possible causes.
Frequently it is just stretching the lungs, strengthening the vocal
cords, etc. > mcv.
mcv
> On Nov 26, 5:04 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> >> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
>> >> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
>> >> > lightning,
>>
>> >> Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
>> >> entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
>> >> if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>>
>> > I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
>> > evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
>> > simple life form.
>>
>> Are you seriously claiming that life doesn't exist? Because it really
>> sounds like you are. I admit exact definitions of what constitutes life
>> and what doesn't can be a bit vague about the borders between life and
>> non-life (like viruses, Von Neumann-machines, etc), but I thought the
>> evidence of the current existence of life was quite widely accepted.
>
> LIfe exists
I'm glad we can agree on that.
>> Now if I can also take for granted that the universe has not existed
>> forever, but came into existence at some point in the distant past,
>> either by Big Bang or (some other) act of God, and that just after
>> its creation, the universe did not yet contain life, then it logically
>> follows that abiogenesis did occur, either by divine creation or by
>> complex molecules somehow attaining the ability to copy themselves.
>>
>> The three premisses that the conclusion that abiogenesis did occur
>> is based on, are:
>> 1. the universe came into being at some point,
>> 2. the universe did not immediately contain life just after that event,
>> 3. the universe does contain life right now,
>>
>> If you do not agree with any of these premisses, please let me know.
>
> OK with me. Whats the point?
You're the one claiming that abiogenesis didn't occur, remember? How is
it possible that once there was no life, now there is life, and yet at
no time in between did life spring into being?
If you were to claim that there is no working scientific theory that
explains how abiogenesis happens, then I'd agree with you, but denying
that abiogenesis happened, that's kinda silly if you accept the three
statements above.
>> > That for which no viable cause can be directly or
>> > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
>> > have occurred.
>>
>> Stuff can only exist if we can prove what caused it? So you're not
>> just denying that life exists, but that most of reality doesn't exist.
>
> Where is the word prove in my post?
"demonstrated or factually supported"? But it's not the word "prove"
that matters here, it's the claim that only stuff whose cause we can
indicate, demonstrate or support, that can exist. I'm sure some of
the Occam's Razor-wielding type atheists will gladly agree with you,
but I don't. There is a lot out there that we do not (yet?) know,
and a lot that we may never figure out. Absense of proof does not
constitute proof of absense.
To be honest, I kinda figured you were in the creationist camp, but
now you're suddenly in the atheist camp. Doesn't matter to me,
because I still disagree with you, but it is kinda funny.
>> > Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
>> > its simple to complex predictions.
>>
>> Not at all. Evolution just demands slightly faulty reproduction and
>> some causal connection between the reproductive code and the resulting
>> organisms reproductive fitness, and nothing more than that.
>
> What organism, where did it come from, how did it become extant. What
> is it that reproduces, mutates, etc.
That doesn't matter to evolution. It could be a piece of software, a
complex molecule, a robot, a divine creation. All that matters is that
if its reproductive fitness is determined by an imperfectly copied code,
evolution will occur.
>> > There is no viable or remotely
>> > believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>>
>> That doesn't matter to evolution. All that matters is that life
>> exists.
>
> That is of course a metaphysical statement.
Life exists is a metaphysical statement? Or that evolution is independent
of an abiogenesis hypothesis? Either way, you're wrong. Both life and
evolution have been observed in the absense of an abiogenesis hypothesis.
>> >> > etc.....only once due to its extreme improbability from any
>> >> > rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
>> >> > known life and would never arise identically more than once.
>>
>> >> That is not some unfounded prediction, it is observed evidence that
>> >> the genetic code is universal. This is not entirely surprising, however,
>> >> and doesn't automatically imply that life has started only once. The
>> >> point is that once life has appeared and evolved into all the easy
>> >> niches where life might appear, any new form of life with a possibly
>> >> completely different genetic system will not be able to compete with
>> >> existing life. It doesn't matter much how often new life forms, the
>> >> first one that does well enough to spread all over the world, wins.
>>
>> > Luckily it left no fossil evidence of any kind, in fact no evidence of
>> > any kind anywhere..
>>
>> Fossils are extremely rare. Fossilisation is a rare process, requiring
>> rather specific circumstances. That's why the LaBrea tar pits and other
>> fossil hotspots are so popular. Chances of finding fossils of one
>> particular organism that failed to reproduce are pretty much zero. The
>> fossils you can find, are the ones of large, stable populations.
>
> Baloney! There are millions of fossils and there are many which are so
> totally isolated from any other group either earlier or later that
> they remain a mystery to this very day. See the Burgess Shale and
> Gould's reflections.
There are millions of fossils, but there have been at least *trillions*
of living organisms on earth since life first began. One in a million
counts as pretty rare in my book.
>> > not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
>> > could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
>>
>> It's sad, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. It might have been, it
>> might not, but even if it had, it wouldn't have left any noticable
>> evidence.
>
> Very scientific statement...it doesn't matter ...laughable.
It's the most scientific statement possible in this respect.
>> >> > Thus it
>> >> > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
>> >> > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>>
>> >> Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
>> >> secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
>> >> lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
>> >> with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
>> >> observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
>> >> the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
>> >> environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
>> >> probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
>> >> for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
>> >> is automatically metaphysical.
>>
>> > Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
>>
>> It's so much easier if people just say you're wrong and don't explain
>> why, isn't it? I'm trying to point out in detail exactly why you are
>> wrong. Read it, and you might learn something.
>
> Nope its just such nonsense. Why does it follow that on the vast area
> of the earth that all these independent abiogenesisi results would be
> competing.
All life is competing. Resources are limited.
Life itself isn't anthropomorphic enough to actually prefer anything.
I'm sure the organisms would prefer zero mutations if they knew what
they were, but a zero mutation rate does mean that evolution grinds
to a halt. Mutations are vital to evolution.
>> >> > GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
>> >> > all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
>> >> > to an information based convention.
>>
>> >> No, it reads and constructs in a way that simply works, because if it
>> >> didn't work, it wouldn't have survived for so long. And the genetic code
>> >> results in the correct molecule being created because an organism with
>> >> that molecule in its body has a greater chance of survival, therefore a
>> >> code that for whatever reason happens to result in that molecule being
>> >> created has a greater chance of being passed on to the next generation.
>> >> At no point is any sort of convention or agreement necessary.
>>
>> > therefore a code that for whatever reason happens to result ...I vote
>> > this as the most ignorant rant to date...totally meaningless and
>> > irrational.
>>
>> You fail to understand how evolution works. The only law of evolution
>> is: if it works, it works. It doesn't have to be logical, easy, or
>> understandable. This is why living organisms are full of overly
>> complicated mechanisms that get the job done, despite the extreme
>> complexity of figuring out how they work.
>
> Your science: ..don't worry...be happy..don't wonder...don't
> investigate just relax its all so complex.. drink your coolaid and
> smile.
Where did I say: "don't wonder, don't investigate"?
>> In this particular case, all that counts is that the enzyme that
>> enhances the organisms survival is produced. Exactly how directly
>> or indirectly this production happens, doesn't matter. This is
>> exactly the difference between systems resulting from evolution
>> and systems that have been designed. A purposeful design should
>> be understandable, have agreed-upon interfaces and standards.
>> Direct is better than indirect, and undocumented side effects are
>> hell, instead of something that can be relied upon.
>>
>> In evolution, it's all the other way around. Extreme complexity is
>> the fingerprint of evolution.
>
> In all my time on the net this is the most rediculous statement ever
> posted. The music of Listz, the Mona Lisa, the Pentium IV processor
> all being enourmously complex arrangements of matter with purpose are
> not actually designed by an intellect because their very complexity
> means that the best explanation for their existence is the gradual
> rearrangement by pure chance of the matter from which they are made by
> natural physical laws unaided by any outside intellect.
Have you ever compared an evolved processor to a Pentium? Pentiums
are simple in comparison. They have structure, dedicated components,
etc. The kind of circuits that John Koza creates through Genetic
Programming are nothing like that. They are way more complex.
>> > Can you nominate a code of communication, any code, that does not
>> > require an agreement of translation and conventional understanding
>> > between sender and receiver in the real world?
>>
>> Yes. The cries of a baby. The baby did not agree to any standard of
>> communication with its parents, the parent simply has to figure out
>> what the cries mean. Is it hungry? Tired? Soiled diaper? A good
>> parent will figure out what it means, perhaps even understand it
>> instinctively. But in the end, it works, because a parent who doesn't
>> understand the needs of the baby will have trouble getting the next
>> generation on its feet and ready to reproduce when it grows up. And
>> a baby who communicates in a way that the parent can't figure out
>> will have a harder time growing up and reproducing. And yet the parent
>> and baby didn't sit down to agree on a standard of communication,
>> because if they did, I'm sure the parent would have insisted on
>> something slightly less noisy.
>
> And such noise contains no information whatsoever.
It most definitely does. Do you have kids? Do you ignore their cries
because they are meaningless?
> It illlicits on a
> search buy an intelligent agent for a range of possible causes.
> Frequently it is just stretching the lungs, strengthening the vocal
> cords, etc.
I hope you're not a parent.
Desertphile
<keato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> > Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> > > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> > > lightning,
> >
> > Your first mistake is confusing evolution with abiogenesis. They're
> > entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
> > if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
> I contend that abiogenesis never occurred
Therefore you do not exist? Sheeeish, you really are fucked up.
Vend
So you mean self-replicating Cellular Automata.
Note that:
- CAs are a mathematical model, they don't strictly apply to physical
organisms.
- The fact that the original Von Neumann's self-replication CA was
sensitive to noise doesn't imply that other CAs or other mathematical
machines are also so sensitive.
- We know that life is possible in noisy environments, even without
error-correction mechanisms. In fact, evolution is driven mostly by
replication errors.
LT
> On Nov 25, 9:51 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
*snip arrogant bullshit*
You are a perfect example of why it is more dangerous to know very
little about something than to know nothing about it. Seems those,
like you, who know the least bleat and complain and talk down to those
that are actually qualified to speak on the subject. Regardless of a
person's beliefs or understanding of the topic, you come across as a
pompous asshole, a legend in his own mind, a woefully incompetent
person, and I pity anyone who has to spend more than 10 seconds in
your presence.
LT
Cj
news:261e8764-b409-401d...@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
As soon as a crackpot starts accusing the opposition of being Nazis it means
they've forsaken logic and are relying on emotion.
We've seen it many times before on this newsgroup.
Cj
Al
>
> LIfe exists
>
>
>
> > Now if I can also take for granted that the universe has not existed
> > forever, but came into existence at some point in the distant past,
> > either by Big Bang or (some other) act of God, and that just after
> > its creation, the universe did not yet contain life, then it logically
> > follows that abiogenesis did occur, either by divine creation or by
> > complex molecules somehow attaining the ability to copy themselves.
>
> > The three premisses that the conclusion that abiogenesis did occur
> > is based on, are:
> > 1. the universe came into being at some point,
> > 2. the universe did not immediately contain life just after that event,
> > 3. the universe does contain life right now,
>
> > If you do not agree with any of these premisses, please let me know.
>
> OK with me. Whats the point?
The point is; if life didn't exist at some point and it does now, then
there must have been a transition. This transition is what we label
Abiogenesis. The details are not known, although there have been
aspects of possible paths from unlife to life that have been shown to
work.
>
> > Not at all. Evolution just demands slightly faulty reproduction and
> > some causal connection between the reproductive code and the resulting
> > organisms reproductive fitness, and nothing more than that.
>
> What organism, where did it come from, how did it become extant. What
> is it that reproduces, mutates, etc.
It doesn't matter. Any imperfect replicating system will evolve.
Evolution has been observed, it happens, and it happens whether you
start with a Human or a puddle of organic self catalysts.
>
> > Even if life has existed for all eternity, evolution can still occur.
> > Ofcourse for evolution to actually result in something new, it helps
> > if the environment of populations of living organisms changes every
> > now and then, be it the entry of a new predator or competitor in
> > their environment, a volcanic outburst, an asteroid impact, a new
> > ice age, or the opening of a new ecological niche.
>
> > > There is no viable or remotely
> > > believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>
> > That doesn't matter to evolution. All that matters is that life
> > exists.
>
> That is of course a metaphysical statement.
No, it's not. You can maybe get away with calling abiogenesis
metaphysical, but evolution is solid, grounded in fact, and governed
by very straightforward logic. Evolution makes no premises other than
the existence of life, the theory doesn't care where it came from.
>
> > > not even a viable scientific hypothesis on what it
> > > could have been. HOW VERY CONVENIENT!
>
> > It's sad, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. It might have been, it
> > might not, but even if it had, it wouldn't have left any noticable
> > evidence.
>
> Very scientific statement...it doesn't matter ...laughable.
Religion is that thing that seems to need an answer to everything,
however dodgy that answer is. Science is about finding the answers,
it doesn't presuppose them.
Yes, there are knowledge gaps in what "science" knows. If there
weren't there would be nothing for scientists to do, they could all
become engineers. But science is about those gaps as much as it is
about the knowledge that's been filled in. The absense of an answer
does not mean that there's some major failure in how everything works.
>
> > It's so much easier if people just say you're wrong and don't explain
> > why, isn't it? I'm trying to point out in detail exactly why you are
> > wrong. Read it, and you might learn something.
>
> Nope its just such nonsense. Why does it follow that on the vast area
> of the earth that all these independent abiogenesisi results would be
> competing.
The "vast area" would be colonized pretty quick on geological scales
of time.
> > Research into genetic algorithms (which applies the exact principles of
> > evolution to computer science) has proven that there is a sweet spot
> > for mutation rates. Too low, and evolution moves too slowly, but too
> > high, and organisms get crippled by harmful mutations. It is very
> > interesting that life contains its own mechanism for fine tuning this
> > mutation rate.
>
> LIfe would prefer zero mutations and its very nearly realized by its
> strenuous, complex, systematic attempts to avoid and repair them.
>
No, life doesn't "prefer" 0 mutations. More complex organisms are
badly served by significant mutations, so they develop systems for
correcting replication errors. I can't see that this is in any way
essential for evolution, esp near an abiogenesis event.
Lets assume that critter A is geologically split into to groups A1 and
A2. A1, due to some freak occurence develops a 100% fool-proof error
correction system for it's genetics. Critter A2 doesn't. Now, if A1
and A2 are both exposed to a change of climate, A2 has some variation
to work with that allows it to evolve to being better suited to the
new climate, where A1 doesn't. If these two groups ever meet again,
A2 will overtake A1 because A1 hasn't evolved past what it's existing
genetic variation could create. End result, 100% reliable error
correction is selected against.
> > >> No, it reads and constructs in a way that simply works, because if it
> > >> didn't work, it wouldn't have survived for so long. And the genetic code
> > >> results in the correct molecule being created because an organism with
> > >> that molecule in its body has a greater chance of survival, therefore a
> > >> code that for whatever reason happens to result in that molecule being
> > >> created has a greater chance of being passed on to the next generation.
> > >> At no point is any sort of convention or agreement necessary.
>
> > > therefore a code that for whatever reason happens to result ...I vote
> > > this as the most ignorant rant to date...totally meaningless and
> > > irrational.
>
> > You fail to understand how evolution works. The only law of evolution
> > is: if it works, it works. It doesn't have to be logical, easy, or
> > understandable. This is why living organisms are full of overly
> > complicated mechanisms that get the job done, despite the extreme
> > complexity of figuring out how they work.
>
> Your science: ..don't worry...be happy..don't wonder...don't
> investigate just relax its all so complex.. drink your coolaid and
> smile.
ROFL
Just because it wasn't explained to you in a newspost doesn't mean it
isn't understood. But the absence of the detail wouldn't invalidate
evolution anyway, which is what he was getting at. One of the things
that would be predicted by evolution being the cause of well
constructed creatures is that there would be uneccessary complexity,
redundant systems, left-overs, etc. Evolution doesn't create the best
tool for the job, just the best available tool at the time.
You seem to be arguing that there must be some design involved in the
genetic "code". Genes are no more codes than chemical templates.
Lots of analogies have been thought up to describe how genes work, but
I think you're reading too much into this Code analogy. DNA's (and
RNA's) behaviour is complex, and it works because if it didn't, the
other stuff that did would be on the petri dish instead.
If you want a detailed explanation of the workings of DNA I'm afraid
you'll have to search for the details yourself. Most of it will be in
research papers on genetics, and virtually everything else will simply
have analogies or simplifications. And my newsgroup reader doesn't
even begin to have a suitable character set.
So, your response to "we haven't worked out the details of
abiogenesis" is still "don't worry...don't wonder..don't
investigate...it mustn't have happened."?
Al
Virgil Griffith
There's a confusion here -- mostly that Von Neumann developed several
models of self-reproducing machines (as I recall, there were 4
different models that he developed). The most famous of these models
is Cellular Automata. Cellular Automata were meant to study simple
self-reproduction in an error-free environment. CA's studied this
quite well, and were successful, however, CA's are indeed highly
sensitive to noise and any sort of noise in the environment usually
leads to things breaking. As such, CA's are bad models for evolving
systems.
However, he had another model that is used for studying evolving
systems -- the Kinematic Self-replicating machine. It's discussed
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanking_replicator#von_Neumann.27s_kinematic_model
and more indepth in the book "Kinematic Self-Replicating
Machines" (you can buy it on Amazon).
In short:
* Although evolution is fairly well understood, CA's merely justify
mechanical self-reproduction. Using CA's to prove evolution is a bit
silly.
* Although CA's are not a good model of evolving systems, von
Neumann's other models are pretty good. You should look into them.
Cheers,
-Virgil Griffith
> On the Viability of Self-reproducing Classical MachinesVirgil Griffith, Doyne Farmer1, Ole Peters1
> August 23, 2005
> Santa Fe Institute REU Paper
> Abstract
> In the early 1950's John von Neuman was investigating self-
> reproduction of analog
> machines from a "sea of parts." For simplicity, he assumed an
> idealized error-free
> environment and eventually developed a self-reproducing Cellular
> Automaton. John von
> Neumann's 29 stage 200,000 cell self-reproducing machine (as well as
> other selfreproducing
> CA's) was complex and extremely brittle to any noise in the
> environment.
> Given its extreme sensitivity to noise, Von Neuman's model is
> unrealistic for any physical
> machine, and is also less interesting as it makes evolution
> impossible.
> This leads to the question of what are the necessary conditions to
> achieve self-reproduction
> in a stochastic environment in which there are errors in reproduction.
> We developed a
> simplified model to study when it is possible for a machine to copy
> itself with enough
> fidelity to be viable. One worries that if a machine is too
> complicated, and the noise is too
> high, there will be an error catastrophe in which the machine cannot
> reproduce sufficiently
> accurate copies to sustain itself. We make an estimate of the critical
> error threshold under a
> given set of assumptions about the fitness function characterizing the
> machines and their
>
>
>
> > > > > All such systems in human experience require an information based
> > > > > design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> > > > > cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> > > > > matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> > > > > physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
>
> > > > All human-made systems are designed. So?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Steven J.
> On Nov 26, 12:35 am, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
> > We? Did you coauthor the above with your tapeworm?
>
> Is this your idea of rational, logical, on point rhetorical debate?
>
No, it's my idea of a dismissive quip aimed at a pretentious and
obnoxious poseur. If you want "rational" and "logical," you should
perhaps refrain from calling your opponents liars, "moronic cult," and
the "evo gestapo."
>
-- [snip]
>
> > No. ID seeks to identify "design" by ruling out all known natural
> > causes, which would require, at a minimum, actually knowing all
> > possible natural causes and all the possible ways they might work
> > together.
>
> Please save your strawman self aggrandizing definition for your
> moronic cult of true believers. A better but personal definition of
> ID is the application of analytical and experimental methods to
> discern with statistical near certainly (beyond a reasonable doubt)
> that a physical observation of a real event, a physical reality, an
> arrangement of matter etc. is the result of an intelligence operating
> or is the chance occurrence of matter acting according to natural laws
> of the universe.
>
definitions are "better," but it makes it hard to converse with those
who prefer less idiosyncratic definitions. Most people go by William
Dembski's account, which identifies "design" by first ruling out
"law" (simple regularities of nature), and then "chance" (contingent
combinations of simple regularities of nature, together with
stochastic processes). This, of course, requires that one actually
know all the simple regularities of nature, as well as all the diverse
ways they can interact with one another. A frequent complaint about
Dembski's "explanatory filter," and similar methods is that Dembski
offers no means to distinguish between the actions of unknown
intelligent Agents and the workings of unknown, nonteleological
natural causes.
Your own argument strikes me as an application, however informal, of
Dembski's method of argument: you harp, on the lack of observations of
living systems spontaneously forming through unguided natural
processes, and the same defect. If science has only the sketchiest
and unsatisfactory clues as to unguided material causes able to
account for the origin of life, it is equally unable to provide
evidence for a Guiding Intelligence capable of doing so. It certainly
could not have been human designers, whose existence, after all,
depends on that origin of terrestrial life. It might have been alien
intelligences, except that they would pose exactly the same problem of
abiogenesis: what was the origin of possible intelligent designers?
It might have been a "supernatural" Intelligence, except, again, the
evidence for any such Entity seems as scanty as the evidence for
material mechanisms capable of abiogenesis (and, of course, a
supernatural Creator could have endowed His creation with the capacity
for abiogenesis, and if His ways are beyond our understanding, how His
creation accomplished this might not be obvious to us).
>
> ID inhibits no scientific inquiry of any kind or
> method for anyone other than dispensing with such that show no promise
> of elucidating a usable result, have been falsified by its methods and
> thus persuading say a cult of flogistonites from clinging to theories
> which have zero evidences after a hundred years and millions of wasted
> manhours and dollar resources. PLease illustrate from ID sourses such
> as the DI principals your moronic statement of their
> theory...otherwise an apology is in order;.
>
I don't recall advancing the "ID is a science-stopper" argument yet.
Perhaps you're just a bit touchy and nervous? On the other hand, how
many years and how many dollars do you think it is reasonable to put
into studying a problem before we decide that it shows no promise, if
we have no testable alternative? Phlogiston, after all, was abandoned
not because it yielded no results but because alternate, testable
theories of combustion did so; it was not as though chemists just
decided "well, phlogiston is a non-starter; we might as well adopt the
theory of intelligent burning." You seem to be arguing harder than I
am that ID is a science stopper.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > This last paragraph is senseless. It would be as sensible for me to
> > complain that such frauds would love YOUR approach to science: trust
> > us, we're intelligent agents, so we must be capable of anything! It
> > is precisely natural causes that are subject to testing and repeated
> > observations.
>
> Their frauds were exposed by repeating their experiments independently
> and discovering that their results never came out; precisely what you
> have argued is not how science should work.
>
You seem to be conflating "the results of an alleged experiment cannot
be replicated" with "there is no conceivable way something could
happen." "Cold fusion" was not proven impossible; it was, rather,
shown that one particular method of achieving controlled fusion did
not actually exist. Cloning would seem to be an even clearer case:
what the fraudulent Korean researchers claimed to have achieved is
presumably possible; all we know is that they didn't figure out how to
actually do it. Any particular account of how life originated could
be falsified in this manner, except, as noted, no one actually claims
to have any such detailed theory. Refuting ID theories or experiments
is harder, as ID proponents seem so averse to actually developing
testable theories.
Evopeach
It did just not by the proposed materialistic, naturalistic,
evolutiona based proposals.
Creation not abiogenesis.
>
> If you were to claim that there is no working scientific theory that
> explains how abiogenesis happens, then I'd agree with you, but denying
> that abiogenesis happened, that's kinda silly if you accept the three
> statements above.
>
> >> > That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> >> > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> >> > have occurred.
>
> >> Stuff can only exist if we can prove what caused it? So you're not
> >> just denying that life exists, but that most of reality doesn't exist.
>
> > Where is the word prove in my post?
>
> "demonstrated or factually supported"? But it's not the word "prove"
> that matters here, it's the claim that only stuff whose cause we can
> indicate, demonstrate or support, that can exist. I'm sure some of
> the Occam's Razor-wielding type atheists will gladly agree with you,
> but I don't. There is a lot out there that we do not (yet?) know,
> and a lot that we may never figure out. Absense of proof does not
> constitute proof of absense.
Every effect has a cause except God the ultimate uncaused cause.
Evolution and any other proposition which appeals to an uncaused
effect or cannot provide sound evidence, demonstrate, or make a case
acceptable to critical thinking, logic, reason, and analysis is
actually a metaphysical belief.
Suppose the events were isolated by 5,000 miles, an ocean, etc. where
is the competition... for air??
Which is why he uses 1,000 parallel Pentiums I suppose. All of his
work depends on his intellect, his skills, his concepts, his knowhow
plus the borrowed works of other intelligent agents to develop his
algorithms. It is never the result of purely unguided random
evolutionary events.
>
> >> > Can you nominate a code of communication, any code, that does not
> >> > require an agreement of translation and conventional understanding
> >> > between sender and receiver in the real world?
>
> >> Yes. The cries of a baby. The baby did not agree to any standard of
> >> communication with its parents, the parent simply has to figure out
> >> what the cries mean. Is it hungry? Tired? Soiled diaper? A good
> >> parent will figure out what it means, perhaps even understand it
> >> instinctively. But in the end, it works, because a parent who doesn't
> >> understand the needs of the baby will have trouble getting the next
> >> generation on its feet and ready to reproduce when it grows up. And
> >> a baby who communicates in a way that the parent can't figure out
> >> will have a harder time growing up and reproducing. And yet the parent
> >> and baby didn't sit down to agree on a standard of communication,
> >> because if they did, I'm sure the parent would have insisted on
> >> something slightly less noisy.
>
> > And such noise contains no information whatsoever.
>
> It most definitely does. Do you have kids? Do you ignore their cries
> because they are meaningless?
So if I am sitting in a room next to an auditorium with no means of
seeing the auditorium, no knowlwdge of the activities therein and I
hear enormous applause, hands clapping and a din of cacaphonous voice
tones I can directly infer due to its communication content (hee haw)
that:
The Eagles have finished a concert
Hillery has given a speech
Someone levitated an elephant
Free pizza is available
ad finitum
DO you work partime in a circus?
Evopeach
>
> - Show quoted text -
CA was one part of his work but the problem was errors in the
replication process and the work tpo repair them was so burdensome
that he realized the replication would be swampted and never proceed
even if it could bre built once.
Evopeach
Then may I please count on never hearing from you by any known method
of communication. Your personal attack and ad hominem post illustrate
your character more clearly than any retort possible. Your opijnion of
me have the import and gravitas of a nutrinos weight.
Free Lunch
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
<6tdkk31uhavl0v4im...@4ax.com>:
>On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:10:35 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
>Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> wrote in
><c6ac2920-6ced-4086...@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>>> > combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
>>> > lightning,
>>>
>>> entirely different things, and the theory of evolution is perfectly valid
>>> if the first living organism was beamed fully formed straight from heaven.
>>
>>I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
>>evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
>>simple life form.
>
>your conclusion is based on faulty reasoning -- unless you are playing
>silly buggers and telling us there is no life today.
>
>
>...
Evopeach responded to me by e-mail. I don't respond to those.
Not that he had anything worth responding to, it was just more
unsupportable assertions and proof of lack of its understanding of
science.
Free Lunch
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<942701bc-efc2-4e2e...@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
Show us your evidence.
You don't have any, none at all that supports your contention. That is
your problem and the foundation of the errors you make.
[Please do not respond in e-mail, I will not respond to you]
...
LT
>
> - Show quoted text -
I've been reading your bullshit for some time now, and it's almost
entirely personal attacks. As such, you're worth nothing more than ad
hominems. You're a joke, and a complete fake. A laughable anomaly,
something to be poked fun at or spit on, and nothing more.
LT
Evopeach
The scientific method breaks down in the limit of ultimate origins, as
in the big bang theory where by definition the laws of the universe
are inoperative, also inside a black hole theoretically, so my
rejection of the standard evolutionary hypothesis of origins and
ultimate beginnings is not a rejection of the scientific method where
it is properly applied.
My hypothesis is that that an intellect designed life and injected his
design onto inanimate matter using processes unknowable to us. This is
however precisely how every scientific, technical or creative act
occurs in all of human history. The intelligent scientist or artist or
technician develops a concept in his consciousness and then impliments
his cognitive thought through a series of creative acts. The matter
which receives his act never performs the creative act unaided by
properties inherent in itself by chance and random self manipulations.
>
> > and if it never occurred
> > evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> > simple life form.
>
> This is a conclusion based on a false premise. Even if God had pouffed
> life into dust 6,000 years ago, or three and a half billion years
> ago, we know that evolution happens because we can observe it in
> action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory.
So evolution can be observed and demonstrated in realtime experiements
in the macro sense now but in the past it took millions of years.
Please provide specific citations in peer reviewed journals for these
observations of macro evolution.
>
> > That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> > have occurred.
>
> Excuse me?
> Can you provide a viable cause for God?
> Of course not!
Every thinker from Augustine forward has declared that God is the
UNCAUSED CAUSE...keep reading>
> We can observe evolution in action. It happened before we understood
> the cause.
>
> By this logic gravity does not exist, and if we observe a ball falling
> to earth it could not have happened because we can't indicate a "first
> cause".
We have perfectly varifiable theories concerning gravitation which
predict such with great precision and such experiments can be carried
out and the results demonstrated AD FINITUM.
>
> > Evolution demands an abiogenesis event
>
> That abiogenesis event could be God breathing life into dust. All that
> matters is that living organisms exist.
>
> > consistent with
> > its simple to complex predictions.
>
> Evolution makes no such predictions.
>
> > There is no viable or remotely
> > believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>
> Well, the scientists who actually study the subject disagree with you.
> What do you know that they don't?
That after 100 years of enormous effort there is not a scintilla ogf
experimentally viable evidence for the non-life to life by natural law
hypothesis...period. NADA!!
> > > of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Evopeach
> In message
> <c6ac2920-6ced-4086-b58c-2e0785bf5...@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
Please provide citatins from peer reviewed journals for the
observation of macro evolution occurring and being observed in
realtime today. This would of course entail illustrating the creation
of new genetic information in the genome capable of and demonstrating
expression of novel traits, advantageous features, etc. which have
resulted in new subpopulations of a species which survive, replicate,
and thrive although being incapable of sexual reproduction with its
parent population or any extant grandparent population by any
available method.
*I have asked for this data now for a while and it is strangely not
forthcoming dispite the chorus of such assertions."
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Evopeach
No, just that if the results are of such complexity that they could
never be produced by a "blind watchmaker" evolutionary process based
on sound scientiific and mathmatical analysis of said results and
observations then indeed an intellligent agent has provided the
cognitive thought, planning, design, knowhow and implemented it. This
is precisely true of all human creative processes where even moderate
complexity is involved. Thus it is perfectly consistent with our
experience to propose that the origin of life was performed similarly
except that there were no human creators around at the time and the
complexity involved is to date beyond the reach of our best scientists
in the current context.
>
> That's a rather better argument *against* an intelligent agent being
> involved. After all, human designers try to *avoid* complexity.
> Complexity arises when there are many different and isolated design
> processes competing with each other within a system - which is why
> software bloats as different design teams work on it, and a lot of
> software is riddled with redundant and duplicated sub-routines. Such
> an outcome is poor design, and occurs because no single programmer has
> responsibility for, and knows and understands the whole of the
> programme.
>
> As a retired VP MIS for a 3 billion $ corp I assure you that current methodologies of systems design and implementation are much improved over the 1970 scenario you describe.
>
> > Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
>
> What does the fact that you resort to such offensive name-calling tell
> us about the weight of your arguments?
The name calling and personal attacks I have witnessed and received
herein are directed at one person... me.
The allusion to the big science gestapo tactics may or may not apply
to the posters here..I have not said so.
>
> RF- Hide quoted text -
Evopeach
>
> - Show quoted text -
As usual zero content and personal attack...very intelligent. I hold
you in complete derision.
Evopeach
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:11:37 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <942701bc-efc2-4e2e-9d9d-b747b59b4...@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Take your meds and go to sleep.
chris thompson
> On Nov 26, 9:17 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 2:38 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
>
> > > Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
>
> > What does the fact that you resort to such offensive name-calling tell
> > us about the weight of your arguments?
>
> The name calling and personal attacks I have witnessed and received
> herein are directed at one person... me.
You are lying. In the first responses to your original post, Steven J
issued no insults and remained on topic. You accused him of dishonesty
at least three times in your response and you got progressively ruder
with every response.
You have no moral high ground. You are rude, pretentious, and
ignorant. You make no sound arguments, you rely entirely on baseless
assertions, and you resort to insult when people call you on your
silliness. In short, you're a loser.
Chris
Mark VandeWettering
> Every effect has a cause except God the ultimate uncaused cause.
This is the start of your argument, and it's already off the rails.
You begin with a universal qualifier (every effect) and then immediately
present your counter example with does not have a cause. Your argument
isn't just circular: it's a dot. If you are going to argue that your
God doesn't need a cause, but the universe somehow does, I say you actually
have to argue it, not merely state it as if it were meaningful.
> Evolution and any other proposition which appeals to an uncaused
> effect or cannot provide sound evidence, demonstrate, or make a case
> acceptable to critical thinking, logic, reason, and analysis is
> actually a metaphysical belief.
So, evolution can't appeal to an uncaused effect, but you can?
Why are you granted amnesty, but others condemned?
Mark
Free Lunch
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<2f276529-5621-44fd...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
Please try this without assuming your conclusion. Thank you.
...
Mark VandeWettering
It is not "by definition" that the laws of the universe are inoperative.
In fact, this statement betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about what
laws are. They describe the universe as we perceive it, they do not constrain
it. It might be that some as yet unperceived physical laws govern the
universe at the time of the big bang: that none of our physical laws as
yet do so is a limitation of our laws, not of the universe.
> My hypothesis is that that an intellect designed life and injected his
> design onto inanimate matter using processes unknowable to us.
Given that you think the methods are unknownable, why bother to believe
it at all? If there is no conceivable way for you to determine if you
are correct, why bother having any opinion about it at all?
> This is however precisely how every scientific, technical or creative
> act occurs in all of human history. The intelligent scientist or
> artist or technician develops a concept in his consciousness and
> then impliments his cognitive thought through a series of creative
> acts. The matter which receives his act never performs the creative
> act unaided by properties inherent in itself by chance and random self
> manipulations.
So, because no intelligence has ever created a living organism, that's
an evidence that they all are created by intelligences?
>> > and if it never occurred
>> > evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
>> > simple life form.
>>
>> This is a conclusion based on a false premise. Even if God had pouffed
>> life into dust 6,000 years ago, or three and a half billion years
>> ago, we know that evolution happens because we can observe it in
>> action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory.
>
> So evolution can be observed and demonstrated in realtime experiements
> in the macro sense now but in the past it took millions of years.
> Please provide specific citations in peer reviewed journals for these
> observations of macro evolution.
Study biology. You might begin with the universality of the genetic
code, and the pattern of nested hierarchies present in them.
>> > That for which no viable cause can be directly or
>> > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
>> > have occurred.
>>
>> Excuse me?
>> Can you provide a viable cause for God?
>> Of course not!
>
> Every thinker from Augustine forward has declared that God is the
> UNCAUSED CAUSE...keep reading
Uh. Augustine wasn't the last philosopher, and his views are far from
universally accepted. Nor do they especially define the universe even
if they were.
>> We can observe evolution in action. It happened before we understood
>> the cause.
>>
>> By this logic gravity does not exist, and if we observe a ball falling
>> to earth it could not have happened because we can't indicate a "first
>> cause".
>
> We have perfectly varifiable theories concerning gravitation which
> predict such with great precision and such experiments can be carried
> out and the results demonstrated AD FINITUM.
And yet, gravity remains very deeply mysterious. Biology, much less so.
>> > Evolution demands an abiogenesis event
>>
>> That abiogenesis event could be God breathing life into dust. All that
>> matters is that living organisms exist.
>>
>> > consistent with
>> > its simple to complex predictions.
>>
>> Evolution makes no such predictions.
>>
>> > There is no viable or remotely
>> > believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>>
>> Well, the scientists who actually study the subject disagree with you.
>> What do you know that they don't?
>
> That after 100 years of enormous effort there is not a scintilla ogf
> experimentally viable evidence for the non-life to life by natural law
> hypothesis...period. NADA!!
I'm curious. The cells in your body are made of particles which were
not "alive", but which are. Is that more or less miraculous than
abiogenesis?
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
You know the odd thing is that it's actually pretty easy to make children
without any knowledge about how DNA works.
Mark
Free Lunch
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<4a12906b-5ee7-4b4d...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>:
Nylonase.
Nic
> In message
> <c6ac2920-6ced-4086-b58c-2e0785bf5...@g21g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> writes
>
> >I contend that abiogenesis never occurred and if it never occurred
> >evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> >simple life form. That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> >indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> >have occurred. Evolution demands an abiogenesis event consistent with
> >its simple to complex predictions. There is no viable or remotely
> >believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>
> Are you a Vedic Creationist?
>
> We know that those parts of the universe casually connected to the Earth
> were once incapable of supporting life. We know that the Earth now
> supports life. So either there's a great (hidden) hole in our
> understanding of physics or abiogenesis occurred.
>
> Also, evolution occurs regardless of how life originated - it doesn't
> matter whether life on Earth arose by spontaneous abiogenesis, local
> panspermia, spontaneous panspermia, directed panspermia, accidental
> panspermia, directed abiogenesis, supernatural abiogenesis, or some
> other process - the theory of evolution still explains its diversity and
> disparity.
Evopeach may accept that (well put, by the way). I think the
abiogenesis/evolution distinction is one of the most bits in the
establishing of any comprehensible position (or debating stance).
> Your contention that evolution never occurred is falsified by that fact
> that we observe it occurring. You might like to be more precise in what
> you're denying.
> --
> alias Ernest Major
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Science can only assume a naturalistic process for abiogenesis. If you
>> don't like that, it's up to you, and you are free to reject science
>> and the scientific method if you chose. What would be dishonest would
>> be to reject science and the scientific method, and then claim that
>> your position is scientific.
>
> The scientific method breaks down in the limit of ultimate origins, as
> in the big bang theory where by definition the laws of the universe
> are inoperative,
Yet the scientific method still provides a tool to investigate the Big
Bang.
> also inside a black hole theoretically,
No, the scientific method is not what breaks down, but our present
theories of how the universe works.
> so my
> rejection of the standard evolutionary hypothesis of origins and
> ultimate beginnings is not a rejection of the scientific method where
> it is properly applied.
It's just a rejection of the scientific method when it applies to your
personal religious beliefs. You reject evolution because it doesn't
match what you want to be reality.
>
> My hypothesis is that that an intellect designed life and injected his
> design onto inanimate matter using processes unknowable to us.
What evidence do you have for this?
> This is
> however precisely how every scientific, technical or creative act
> occurs in all of human history.
Every "creative act" that humans have done uses processes that are well
understood by science. No human creative act uses "processes
unknowable to us".
> The intelligent scientist or artist or
> technician develops a concept in his consciousness and then impliments
> his cognitive thought through a series of creative acts.
Using natural processes.
> The matter
> which receives his act never performs the creative act unaided by
> properties inherent in itself by chance and random self manipulations.
So, a scientist mixes the chemicals together, and the crystals don't
grow by themselves, they require the scientist to build them atom by
atom? If an artist places paint on a canvas, he has to personally
bind the pigments with the material on a molecular level? A
photographer must individually develop each molecule of silver nitrate
to produce an image?
>>> and if it never occurred
>>> evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
>>> simple life form.
>> This is a conclusion based on a false premise. Even if God had pouffed
>> life into dust 6,000 years ago, or three and a half billion years
>> ago, we know that evolution happens because we can observe it in
>> action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory.
>
> So evolution can be observed and demonstrated in realtime experiements
> in the macro sense now but in the past it took millions of years.
Evolution occurred in "realtime" in the past as well. All evolutionary
change does not require millions of years, now or in the pat. Evolution
has been going on for millions of years, but that doesn't mean it always
takes millions of years to happen.
> Please provide specific citations in peer reviewed journals for these
> observations of macro evolution.
Beheregaray LB, Sunnucks P, 2001. Fine-scale genetic structure,
estuarine colonization and incipient speciation in the marine silverside
fish Odontesthes argentinensis. Molecular Ecology 10(12): 2849-2866.
Fanello C, Petrarca V, et al., 2003. The pyrethroid knock-down
resistance gene in the Anopheles gambiae complex in Mali and further
indication of incipient speciation within An. gambiae s.s. Insect Mol.
Biol. 12(3): 241-245.
Irwin, Darren E., Staffan Bensch & Trevor D. Price, 2001. Speciation in
a ring. Nature 409: 333-337
Van Valen, Leigh M. & Maiorana, Virginia C., 1991. HeLa, a new microbial
species. Evolutionary Theory 10: 71-74.
Wake, David B., 1997. Incipient species formation in salamanders of the
Ensatina complex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 94:
7761-7767.
The above were gathered from
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=No_new_species_have_been_observed
>
>>> That for which no viable cause can be directly or
>>> indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
>>> have occurred.
>> Excuse me?
>> Can you provide a viable cause for God?
>> Of course not!
>
> Every thinker from Augustine forward has declared that God is the
> UNCAUSED CAUSE...keep reading>
That's an unsupported claim. Some "thinkers" have claimed that God
does not exist. Some think that God is substantially different from
what you seem to view God as.
>> We can observe evolution in action. It happened before we understood
>> the cause.
>>
>> By this logic gravity does not exist, and if we observe a ball falling
>> to earth it could not have happened because we can't indicate a "first
>> cause".
>
> We have perfectly varifiable theories concerning gravitation which
> predict such with great precision and such experiments can be carried
> out and the results demonstrated AD FINITUM.
Likewise with evolution. We have verifiable theories concerning
evolution and biology, and those experiments can be carried out, and
results demonstrated ad infinitum as well.
>>> Evolution demands an abiogenesis event
>> That abiogenesis event could be God breathing life into dust. All that
>> matters is that living organisms exist.
>>
>>> consistent with
>>> its simple to complex predictions.
>> Evolution makes no such predictions.
>>
>>> There is no viable or remotely
>>> believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>> Well, the scientists who actually study the subject disagree with you.
>> What do you know that they don't?
>
> That after 100 years of enormous effort there is not a scintilla ogf
> experimentally viable evidence for the non-life to life by natural law
> hypothesis...period. NADA!!
Actually, there is a significant amount of evidence of life from non
life, but not enough to favor one particular scenario. In any case,
the evidence for the diversification of life by evolution is much more
supported than abiogenesis.
snip the rest.
DJT
Al
Al
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Take your meds and go to sleep.
As usual zero content and personal attack...very intelligent. I hold
you in complete derision.
Al
Timberwoof
<6238c742-2e36-4612...@w28g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
The Last Conformist <andr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 7:16 am, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <df0eb7bd-9cc4-4360-b196-5c070c42b...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > Al <alwh...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > On Nov 26, 11:44 am, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > On the Viability of Self-reproducing Classical Machines Virgil
> > > > Griffith, Doyne Farmer1, Ole Peters1 August 23, 2005 Santa Fe
> > > > Institute REU Paper Abstract In the early 1950's John von Neuman
> > > > was investigating self- reproduction of analog machines from a "sea
> > > > of parts." For simplicity, he assumed an idealized error-free
> > > > environment and eventually developed a self-reproducing Cellular
> > > > Automaton. John von Neumann's 29 stage 200,000 cell
> > > > self-reproducing machine (as well as other selfreproducing CA's)
> > > > was complex and extremely brittle to any noise in the environment.
> > > > Given its extreme sensitivity to noise, Von Neuman's model is
> > > > unrealistic for any physical machine, and is also less interesting
> > > > as it makes evolution impossible.
> >
> > > You do realize it was all a big arse thought expirement don't you?
> > > Very much a "what if" to draw analogies to life for, but flawed in
> > > how it related to life. The VonNeuman Machine idea does highlight
> > > some of the problems life must have overcome, but not all of the
> > > VonNeuman machine's problems would be the same as Life's problems. If
> > > life WAS designed, then it would be closer to VonNeuman machines.
> >
> > The devices described in this thought experiment are not Von Neumann
> > machines. That is a technical term in computer science; it refers to a
> > particular computer architecture. (Until lately, just about any computer
> > you are likely to use is a Von Neumann machine.)
>
> It is *also* a term for a self-replicating machine. Sometimes words
> have more than one meaning, confusing as it may be.
Oh, they do? Well! No wonder I've been so confused all my life! And
there all along I thought "homonym" meant a gay person's name. <:)
"Replicators have also been called "von Neumann machines" after John von
Neumann, who first rigorously studied the idea. But this term ("von
Neumann machine") is less specific and also refers to a completely
unrelated computer architecture proposed by von Neumann, so its use is
discouraged where accuracy is important. Von Neumann himself used the
term Universal Constructor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanking_replicator
http://mayet.som.yale.edu/coopetition/vN.html
mentions both, but calls only one of them "Von Neumann Machine".
So you can call a Universal Constructor what you want to call it, but
I'll call it what Von Neumann wanted to call it. So nyah. :p ;-)
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
richardal...@googlemail.com
It is if you pretend that your objections are scientific.
>
> My hypothesis is that that an intellect designed life and injected his
> design onto inanimate matter using processes unknowable to us.
Fine.
So to test that "hypothesis" you need to propose a observation or
measurement which cannot be explained by the mysterious intervention
of a possible supernatural entity.
Until you can do so - and to date no ID proponent has - you have no
claim to a scientific hypothesis.
> This is
> however precisely how every scientific, technical or creative act
> occurs in all of human history.
Nonsense. No scientific hypothesis cannot be tested - if it can't it
isn't a scientific hypothesis - and the intervention of an unknown
intellect using unspecified but possibly supernatural powers is not a
conclusion which can be drawn from scientific enquiry. If scientists
don't know how something originated, the conclusion is that they don't
know how something originated.
> The intelligent scientist or artist or
> technician develops a concept in his consciousness and then impliments
> his cognitive thought through a series of creative acts.
As you have no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any such
entity in a prebiotic earth, you can't formulate an hypothesis based
on the imagined existence of such an entity.
> The matter
> which receives his act never performs the creative act unaided by
> properties inherent in itself by chance and random self manipulations.
How on earth do you know this? We know that populations of living
organisms evolve - we can, after all observe this in nature and
replicate it in the lab. All the evidence shows that the current
diversity and complexity of living organism is the outcome of three
and half billion years of evolution. There is no evidence whatsoever
for any external guidance for this process.
>
>
> > > and if it never occurred
> > > evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
> > > simple life form.
>
> > This is a conclusion based on a false premise. Even if God had pouffed
> > life into dust 6,000 years ago, or three and a half billion years
> > ago, we know that evolution happens because we can observe it in
> > action in the natural world and replicate it in the laboratory.
>
> So evolution can be observed and demonstrated in realtime experiements
> in the macro sense now but in the past it took millions of years.
Who on earth said that it took millions of years in the past?
Speciation events are "macroevolution" in the sense that evolutionary
biologists use the term (and I note that you have introduced the term
here in a somewhat transparent attempt to change the argument), and we
have numerous instances of observed speciation events in nature and in
the laboratory.
> Please provide specific citations in peer reviewed journals for these
> observations of macro evolution.
>
A few are described here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
There are many more in the literature.
>
>
> > > That for which no viable cause can be directly or
> > > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
> > > have occurred.
>
> > Excuse me?
> > Can you provide a viable cause for God?
> > Of course not!
>
> Every thinker from Augustine forward has declared that God is the
> UNCAUSED CAUSE...keep reading>
But *YOU* said that something for which there is no viable cause can
never have occurred!
So you make an exception when it suits you.
This is called "double standards".
>
> > We can observe evolution in action. It happened before we understood
> > the cause.
>
> > By this logic gravity does not exist, and if we observe a ball falling
> > to earth it could not have happened because we can't indicate a "first
> > cause".
>
> We have perfectly varifiable theories concerning gravitation which
> predict such with great precision and such experiments can be carried
> out and the results demonstrated AD FINITUM.
We have perfectly viable theories of evolution, which have been
extensively tested by observation in nature and by experiments in the
laboratory. Those theories provide mechanisms for evolution which can
and have been extensively tested.
We don't have a theory for how gravity works. In fact, we have
conflicting hypotheses of how gravity works. There is no unified
theory which combines gravity with the other fundamental forces in
physics, and we lack the technology to test the different hypotheses.
So we have no theory which provides a "first cause" for gravity, and
by your logic this means that balls don't fall to the ground.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Evolution demands an abiogenesis event
>
> > That abiogenesis event could be God breathing life into dust. All that
> > matters is that living organisms exist.
>
> > > consistent with
> > > its simple to complex predictions.
>
> > Evolution makes no such predictions.
>
> > > There is no viable or remotely
> > > believable or demonstrable abiogenesis hypothesis...period.
>
> > Well, the scientists who actually study the subject disagree with you.
> > What do you know that they don't?
>
> That after 100 years of enormous effort there is not a scintilla ogf
> experimentally viable evidence for the non-life to life by natural law
> hypothesis...period. NADA!!
>
There is extensive evidence for how complex organic molecules can
form. Nobody ever claimed that it was easy - after all, it probably
took natural processes hundreds of millions of years to progress from
complex organic molecules to something recognisable as a living
organism. It is only relatively recently that we gained any real
knowledge of the conditions of the Hadean, when life originated.
That's no reason to abandon science.
RF
> ...
>
> read more >>
wf3h
>
> No, just that if the results are of such complexity that they could
> never be produced by a "blind watchmaker" evolutionary process based
> on sound scientiific and mathmatical analysis of said results and
> observations then indeed an intellligent agent has provided the
> cognitive thought, planning, design, knowhow and implemented it
which is pure nonsense
creationists, by ruling out natural causes, leave only supernatural
causes
and they do so by looking at events caused by 'intelligent
agents' (people).
but there's a problem: intelligent agents ALWAYS use natural
processes. they can't do anything else. they are limited by the laws
of nature. people can't go faster than light, for example.
so how can creationists looking ONLY at natural events conclude that a
supernatural cause was involved, since we've never SEEN a supernatural
cause? we have NO idea what such a cause would look like, how it would
work, and how we could test for it.
other than that it's a great theory.
. This
> is precisely true of all human creative processes where even moderate
> complexity is involved. Thus it is perfectly consistent with our
> experience to propose that the origin of life was performed similarly
> except that there were no human creators around at the time and the
> complexity involved is to date beyond the reach of our best scientists
> in the current context.
tell you what: when humans go faster than light, you be sure and let
me know, OK?
Ernest Major
<4a12906b-5ee7-4b4d...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
you wrote makes it look as if you're moving the goalposts. However thank
you for implicitly (by changing your terminology from evolution to macro
evolution) conceding that your contention that evolution does not occur
is false.
>
>Please provide citatins from peer reviewed journals for the
>observation of macro evolution occurring and being observed in
>realtime today. This would of course entail illustrating the creation
>of new genetic information in the genome capable of and demonstrating
>expression of novel traits, advantageous features, etc. which have
>resulted in new subpopulations of a species which survive, replicate,
>and thrive although being incapable of sexual reproduction with its
>parent population or any extant grandparent population by any
>available method.
Your demand for "realtime" observations is a strawman. We don't need to
observe things in "realtime" to be able to study them. (For example
supervolcano and flood basalt eruptions, scabland forming floods. Or for
an example potentially more closely analogous to speciation -
continental drift was identified before we were capable of measuring it
in real time, and we still haven't observed de novo formation of an
ocean basin.
Furthermore, validation of the theory of evolution does not require
"realtime" observation of speciation - as one might infer from Charles
Darwin's success in convincing his contemporaries of the factuality of
common descent with modification. Nor does the theory of evolution in
general require that speciation occur in "realtime". However in
practice, among the various modes of speciation, some can be remarkably
fast, and hence I am able to provide you with citations for observed
instances of speciation, which I do so below.
Most sexually reproducing species (at least among tetrapods and
flowering plants - I'm not sufficiently familar with other groups) are
capable of sexual reproduction with related species. In fact the
boundaries of sexual reproduction can be remarkable wide, for example
among galliform birds (megapodes, turkeys, pheasants, grouse, chickens,
peafowl, ...), anatid birds (ducks, geese and swans), passeroid birds
(interfamilial hybrids link sparrows, finches and buntings), parrots,
maloid trees (apples, pears, rowans, ...), cacti, and orchids. Therefore
I'm discounting your requirement of incapability of sexual reproduction
as irrelevant to the factuality of speciation.
From my files, papers covering direct observation of speciation and
respeciation include
* Brukaber et al, Production of fertile hybrid germplasm with diploid
Australian Gossypium species for cotton improvement, Euphytica 108:
199–213 (1999)
* Crawford & Mort,.Polyploidy: some things old to go with the new, Taxon
52(3): 583-584 (2003)
* Rapp and Wendel, Epigenetics and plant evolution, New Phytologist 168
: 81-91 (2005)
* Abbott et al, Plant introductions, hybridization and gene flow, Phil.
Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B 358: 1123-1132 (2003)
* Abbott et al, Recent Plant Speciation in Britain and Ireland: Origins,
Estabishment and Evolution of Four New Hybrid Species, Proceedings of
the Royal Irish Academy 105B(3): 173-183 (2005)
* Lowe & Abbott, Routes of Origin of Two Recently Evolved Hybrid Taxa:
Senecio vulgaris var. hibernicus and York Radiate Groundsel
(Asteraceae), American Journal of Botany 87(8): 1159-1167 (2000)
* Abbott et al, Hybrid origin of the Oxford Ragwort, Senecio squalidus
L: morphological and allozyme differences between S. squalidus and S.
rupestris Waldst. and Kit., Watsonia 24: 17-29 (2002)
* Hegarty & Hiscock, Hybrid speciation in plants: new insights from
molecular studies, New Phytologist 165: 411-423 (2005)
* Verne Grant, Frequency of Spontaneous Amphiploids in Gilia
(Polemoniaceae) hybrids, American Journal of Botany 89(8): 1197-1202
(2002)
* Verne Grant, Selection for Vigor and Fertility in the Progeny of a
Highly Sterile Species Hybrid in Gilia, Genetics 53: 757-773 (1966)
* Verne Grant, Linkage Between Viability and Fertility in a Species
Cross in Gilia, Genetics 54: 867-880 (1966)
* Verne Grant, The Origin of a New Species of Gilia in a Hybridisation
Experiment, Genetics 54: 1189-1199 (1966)
* Ungerer et al, Rapid hybrid speciation in wild sunflowers, PNAS 95:
11757-11762 (1998)
* Ayres & Strong, Origin and genetic diversity of Spartina anglica
(Poaceae) using nuclear DNA markers, American Journal of Botany 88(10):
1863-1867 (2001)
*Baumel et al, Retrotransposons and Genomic Stability in Populations of
the Young Allopolyploid Species Spartina anglica C.E. Hubbard (Poaceae),
Mol. Biol. Evol. 19(8): 1218-1227 (2002)
* Ainouche et al, Hybridization, polyploidy and speciation in Spartina
(Poaceae), New Phytologist 161: 165-172 (2003)
* Baumel et al, Retrotransposons and Genomic Stability in Populations of
the Young Allopolyploid Species Spartina anglica C.E. Hubbard (Poaceae),
Mol. Biol. Evol. 19(8): 1218-1227 (2002)
* Ainouche et al, Hybridization, polyploidy and speciation in Spartina
(Poaceae), New Phytologist 161: 165-172 (2003)
* Yannic et al, Uniformity of the nuclear and chloroplast genomes of
Spartina maritima (Poaceae), a salt-marsh species in decline along the
Western European Coast, Heredity 93: 182-188 (2004)
* Kovarik et al, Rapid Concerted Evolution of Nuclear Ribosomal DNA in
Two Tragopogon Allopolyploids of Recent and Recurrent Origin, Genetics
169: 931-944 (2005)
* Cook & Soltis, Mating system of diploid and allotetraploid populations
of Tragopogon (Asteraceae). I. Natural Populations, Heredity 82: 237-244
(1999)
* Ozkan et al, Allopolyploidy-Induced Rapid Genome Evolution in the
Wheat ( Aegilops – Triticum ) Group, The Plant Cell 13: 1735-1747
(2001)
* Skalická et al, Rapid evolution of parental rDNA in a synthetic
tobacco allotetraploid line, American Journal of Botany 90(7): 988-996
(2003)
* Kulak et al, Karyotyping of Brassica amphidiploids using 5S and 25S
rDNA as chromosome markers, Hereditas 136: 144-150 (2002)
* Pontes et al, Chromosomal locus rearrangements are a rapid response to
formation of the allotetraploid Arabidopsis suecica genome, PNAS
101(52): 18240-18245 (2004)
Abbott, R.J.; Ingram, R.; Noltie, H.J., Discovery of Senecio cambrensis
Rosser in Edinburgh, Watsonia 14: 407-408 (1983)
* Weir & Ingram, Ray Morphology and Cytological Investigations of
Senecio cambrensis Rosser, New Phytologist 86: 237-241 (1980)
* Ingram & Noltie, Ray Floret Morphology and the Origin of Variability
in Senecio cambrensis Rosser, a Recently Established Allopolyploid
Species, New Phytologist 96: 601-607 (1984)
* Lowe & Abbott, Reproductive isolation of a new hybrid species, Senecio
eboracensis Abbott & Lowe (Asteraceae), Heredity 92: 386-395 (2004)
* Greenleaf, Sterile and Fertile Amphiploids: The Possible Relation to
the Origin of Nicotiana tabacum, Genetics 26: 301-324 (1941)
* MacNair, MacNair & Martin, Adaptive speciation in Mimulus: an
ecological comparison of M. cupriphilus with its presumed progenitor, M.
guttatus, New Phytologist 112: 269-279 (1989)
That's an incomplete list - it doesn't includes Secalotritici (and
assorted other Triticeae - for example there's an extensive literature
on synthetic wheats), Brassicoraphani, Erusica (and other Brassicinae -
for example there's an extensive literature of synthetic Brassica, of
which I only cited a single paper), Primula kewensis, Erusica,
Abelmoschus caillei, and no doubt others.
For examples of extensive morphological change I refer you to dogs,
domestic pigeons, and Brassicas. For examples of novel genes I refer you
to nylonases.
>
>*I have asked for this data now for a while and it is strangely not
>forthcoming dispite the chorus of such assertions."
Strange, since the information is readily available.
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
chris thompson
Evopeach is an idiot and won't accept anything even when it's placed
under his running little nose. He already wrote that he does not
accept abiogenesis; he accepts creation. How's that for an oxymoron?
Chris
Ernest Major
<2014e164-dfcf-45da...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> writes
unfair - although he's been somewhat coy about his positions, on this
point at least it's clear that he means spontaneous abiogenesis, as
opposed to directed or supernatural or some other form of abiogenesis.
--
alias Ernest Major
TomS
<MXaYvUHqn$SHF...@meden.invalid>, Ernest Major stated..."
>
>In message
><4a12906b-5ee7-4b4d...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> writes
>>Please provide citatins from peer reviewed journals for the
>>observation of macro evolution occurring and being observed in
>>realtime today. This would of course entail illustrating the creation
>>of new genetic information in the genome capable of and demonstrating
>>expression of novel traits, advantageous features, etc. which have
>>resulted in new subpopulations of a species which survive, replicate,
>>and thrive although being incapable of sexual reproduction with its
>>parent population or any extant grandparent population by any
>>available method.
>
>Your demand for "realtime" observations is a strawman. We don't need to
>observe things in "realtime" to be able to study them. (For example
>supervolcano and flood basalt eruptions, scabland forming floods. Or for
>an example potentially more closely analogous to speciation -
>continental drift was identified before we were capable of measuring it
>in real time, and we still haven't observed de novo formation of an
>ocean basin.
It is always a pleasure to see a creationist admitting that the evidence
for evolution is so overwhelming.
I won't bother to repeat the citations of sources. Anyway, we all know
that the goal posts will move, in any way possible to exclude the
overwhelming evidence for evolution. The creationists are desperate,
and they implicitly acknowledge the extremes that they are driven to,
and are willing to go to, to deny evolution.
I'd just like to point out, once again, that even by the mildest of
standards, the creationists have nothing to offer in the way of what
a creation event might be like. While they are setting the standards
ever higher for science, they are setting the standards ever lower
for creationism.
At one time, there was a bit of substance to creationism, when
there was young earth creationism, but that turned into the
"intelligent design" variety, and now even that is being watered
down to "teach the controversy".
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
richardal...@googlemail.com
If you think that there are "sound scientific and mathematical"
analyses which show this, feel free to offer some evidence. It's worth
noting that in making this assertion about the bacterial flagellum,
Behe has not only specifically *excluded* the explanation for the
evolution of this structure provided by evolutionary biologists, but
has also dismissed as "unconvincing" dozens of scientific papers
dealing with this subject *without even reading them*!
> This
> is precisely true of all human creative processes where even moderate
> complexity is involved.
What is true of human processes is that lack of planning, lack of
design, lack of knowhow and cognitive though lead to overly complex
and rather inefficient systems.
> Thus it is perfectly consistent with our
> experience to propose that the origin of life was performed similarly
> except that there were no human creators around at the time and the
> complexity involved is to date beyond the reach of our best scientists
> in the current context.
What the evidence from the way in which humans develop systems shows
is more or less the exact opposite. However, even if you are correct,
this is no reason to invoke the intervention of agents or processes
for which there is no evidence.
>
>
>
>
>
> > That's a rather better argument *against* an intelligent agent being
> > involved. After all, human designers try to *avoid* complexity.
> > Complexity arises when there are many different and isolated design
> > processes competing with each other within a system - which is why
> > software bloats as different design teams work on it, and a lot of
> > software is riddled with redundant and duplicated sub-routines. Such
> > an outcome is poor design, and occurs because no single programmer has
> > responsibility for, and knows and understands the whole of the
> > programme.
>
> > As a retired VP MIS for a 3 billion $ corp I assure you that current methodologies of systems design and implementation are much improved over the 1970 scenario you describe.
>
Tell that to the people who use Microsoft operating systems!
No doubt any improvements you achieved were on the basis of
eliminating redundancy, duplication and unnecessary complexity. Living
organisms are riddled with duplication, redundancy and unnecessary
complexity.
The simple fact is that poor design and the absence of any overall
designer tends to excessive complexity and inefficiency, and living
organisms are riddled with examples of overly complex and inefficient
designs.
All of which is of course irrelevant, as even if there were some
substance in your assertions, you cannot express them in a way which
allows predictions to be made, or as propositions which can be
falsified. To falsify your assertions you need to propose a potential
measurement or observation which could *not* be explained by the
intervention of an unknown but possibly supernatural agent using
unknown but possibly supernatural methods.
> > > Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
>
> > What does the fact that you resort to such offensive name-calling tell
> > us about the weight of your arguments?
>
> The name calling and personal attacks I have witnessed and received
> herein are directed at one person... me.
So what do you mean by the use of the very emotive term "Gestapo"?
>
> The allusion to the big science gestapo tactics may or may not apply
> to the posters here..I have not said so.
And what evidence do you have for *any* Gestapo-like tactics on the
part of any scientist?
Rejecting your religious convictions as science is not "Gestapo"
tactics, but merely pointing out that they are not science.
RF
chris thompson
> chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com> writes
I don't think it's terribly unfair. It's typical of arrogant
creationists to post something here when they don't know the first
thing about the science. In this case, as far as I could see, EP was
railing against "abiogenesis" before he ever figured out (or was told-
I don't think he ever twigged to it on his own) that creation is just
another form of abiogenesis. Ignorance is one thing, but if you want
to parade ignorance about with such pride, you'd better be able to
live with some consequences.
Chris
Evopeach
wrote:
> On Nov 26, 8:07 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 26, 9:17 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 2:38 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > > > Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
>
> > > What does the fact that you resort to such offensive name-calling tell
> > > us about the weight of your arguments?
>
> > The name calling and personal attacks I have witnessed and received
> > herein are directed at one person... me.
>
> You are lying. In the first responses to your original post, Steven J
> issued no insults and remained on topic. You accused him of dishonesty
> at least three times in your response and you got progressively ruder
> with every response.
>
> You have no moral high ground. You are rude, pretentious, and
> ignorant. You make no sound arguments, you rely entirely on baseless
> assertions, and you resort to insult when people call you on your
> silliness. In short, you're a loser.
>
> Chris
>
You are wasting your time with such attempts as they are simply
catalysts for my pity of you state of being.
>
>
>
> > The allusion to the big science gestapo tactics may or may not apply
> > to the posters here..I have not said so.
>
> > > RF- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Evopeach
Mark please read carefully. I stated in essence,as a host of
philoso[phers and thinkers in the past, that an infinite regress is
illogical and meaningless. That God is the uncaused cause, NOT EFFECT,
as you mistated. God is the ultimate CAUSE and is not an EFFECT. The
arguments are based on first principles of reason and debate, the
principle of causality, the concept of contingent and necessary
things.
I have no need to submit these because you can easily read them for
yourself on the net.
You appear to be so angry and frustrated that you leap to illogical
posts without ever reading the basis carefully.
Evopeach
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:07:47 -0800 (PST), in talk.origins
> <2f276529-5621-44fd-a3b1-36b6ff078...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>:
DOes this mean you believe there were humans present at your
abiogenetic event?
>
> ...- Hide quoted text -
chris thompson
> On Nov 26, 7:42 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 8:07 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 26, 9:17 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 2:38 pm, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > snip
>
> > > > > Its a wonder he hasn't been plundered and pillaged by the Evo Gestapo.
>
> > > > What does the fact that you resort to such offensive name-calling tell
> > > > us about the weight of your arguments?
>
> > > The name calling and personal attacks I have witnessed and received
> > > herein are directed at one person... me.
>
> > You are lying. In the first responses to your original post, Steven J
> > issued no insults and remained on topic. You accused him of dishonesty
> > at least three times in your response and you got progressively ruder
> > with every response.
>
> > You have no moral high ground. You are rude, pretentious, and
> > ignorant. You make no sound arguments, you rely entirely on baseless
> > assertions, and you resort to insult when people call you on your
> > silliness. In short, you're a loser.
>
> > Chris
>
> > You own post is vicoious and a quick review of the string reveals a plethora of similar attacks. The prima facia evidence mitigates against your comments. You offer no meaningful rebuttal, no argument, no substance, just venom and crudity and someohow expect such will harm me.
A review of the posts, as is readily available through Google Groups,
shows your dishonesty in this matter. But the creationists' desperate
need for martyrdom is well-known around here. WIthout your persecution
complex, you really have nothing to say, do you? For your information,
most readers of talk.origins are far too well-informed to fall for
that age-old trick. It doesn't work here.
As to substance, no I didn't rebut any of your specious arguments.
They were already rebutted quite efficiently by Richard Forrest,
Ernest Major (I notice you have studiously ignored Ernest Major's list
of peer-reviewed articles, provided at _your_ request. Why is that?),
and others. I am more than willing to discuss something here if you
think you can refrain from pointless insult, though.
> You are wasting your time with such attempts as they are simply
> catalysts for my pity of you state of being.
Are you trying for incoherence as an art form?
Chris
Mark VandeWettering
>> On 2007-11-26, Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Every effect has a cause except God the ultimate uncaused cause.
>>
>> This is the start of your argument, and it's already off the rails.
>> You begin with a universal qualifier (every effect) and then immediately
>> present your counter example with does not have a cause. Your argument
>> isn't just circular: it's a dot. If you are going to argue that your
>> God doesn't need a cause, but the universe somehow does, I say you actually
>> have to argue it, not merely state it as if it were meaningful.
>>
>> > Evolution and any other proposition which appeals to an uncaused
>> > effect or cannot provide sound evidence, demonstrate, or make a case
>> > acceptable to critical thinking, logic, reason, and analysis is
>> > actually a metaphysical belief.
>>
>> So, evolution can't appeal to an uncaused effect, but you can?
>>
>> Why are you granted amnesty, but others condemned?
>>
>> Mark
>
> Mark please read carefully. I stated in essence,as a host of
> philoso[phers and thinkers in the past, that an infinite regress is
> illogical and meaningless.
I wonder why you choose to invoke on then.
> That God is the uncaused cause, NOT EFFECT, as you mistated.
I don't see how this particularly changes the argument, or my objection to it.
> God is the ultimate CAUSE and is not an EFFECT.
Here I'll demonstrate.
"God is the ultimate CAUSE, and is not an EFFECT."
"The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the ultimate CAUSE, and is not an EFFECT."
"Unconfusium is the ultimate CAUSE, and is not an EFFECT."
Is there some reason (by reason, I meant something reasonalbe) we should
prefer one of these claims over the other?
> The arguments are based on first principles of reason and debate,
> the principle of causality, the concept of contingent and necessary
> things.
I wonder why you think that causality will apply to the early universe.
Or even why a principle constrains reality.
> I have no need to submit these because you can easily read them for
> yourself on the net.
>
> You appear to be so angry and frustrated that you leap to illogical
> posts without ever reading the basis carefully.
Don't flatter yourelf. I'm neither angry nor frustrated. I'm bemused.
Mark
John Wilkins
How about "The universe is the ultimate CAUSE, NOT EFFECT"? It works for
me...
>
> > The arguments are based on first principles of reason and debate,
> > the principle of causality, the concept of contingent and necessary
> > things.
>
> I wonder why you think that causality will apply to the early universe.
> Or even why a principle constrains reality.
>
> > I have no need to submit these because you can easily read them for
> > yourself on the net.
> >
> > You appear to be so angry and frustrated that you leap to illogical
> > posts without ever reading the basis carefully.
>
> Don't flatter yourelf. I'm neither angry nor frustrated. I'm bemused.
>
> Mark
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
LT
wrote:
> On Nov 27, 8:20 am,Evopeach<keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 7:42 pm, chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Nov 26, 9:17 am, richardalanforr...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
As Chris Thompson said, Evopeach's so-called "arguments" have already
been soundly rebutted and defeated, in this thread and in countless
others. We're all just tired of the same old bullshit arguments from
people how haven't a clue about what they are talking about. He has
proven, like so many others like him, that he isn't worth "debating"
with any further.
To illustrate the point:
http://cectic.com/069.html
LT
soria...@gmail.com
> 1) The evos en masse conclude the first life embiont arose by chance
> combinations of available raw materials and an energy source, sun,
> rational basis. Once because the genetic code is universal in all
> is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
> unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>
> system to perform required error correction in the replicative
> population which can then evolve by random mutation and natural
> selection...ie, no evolution.
>
> However this is the classic definition of a Von Neumann machine as
> proposed by the great 20th century scientist, "Johnny". He concluded
> that such a machine could not be built because the level of three
> layer complexity and the unavoidable error rates in each would result
> in a non-functioning machine or failure rate greater than the rate of
> reproduction.
>
> The first life and certainly the first cell was a Von Neumann machine
> and such never arise from stochastic processes.
>
> 3) The Von Neumann machine exhibited in all of life relies on the DNA
> molecule and the genetic code. The closed loop system of the cell
> includes the ability to read the gentic code instructions from the DNA
> molecule and translate the code from the various 3-letter codons into
> chains of amino acids which look nothing like the codon instruction
> and then fold into 3-d molecular structures such as enzymes which
> themselves are absolutely necessary to the cells ability to extract
> energy from its environment and replicate itself, including the DNA
> molecule. Moreover the process generates stereochemically pure forms
> necessary and critical to cellular functionality...which no
> evolutionary experimenter has ever been able to do in any origin of
> life experiemnt.
>
> 4) No system of code which convey information between a sender and
> receiver via a channel system ever arose stochastically. They always
> require a convention of agreement between same and that is the product
> of intellect and design in every case.
>
> SOS does not look like any form of distress in itself and only to
> parties who know the code and its meanings by intellectually agreed
> upon conventions.
>
> GCC does not in any way look like alanine..no inherent relationship at
> all. Yet the cell machinery reads, translates and constructs according
> to an information based convention.
>
> Such Von Neumann machines incorporating codes, conventions, and
> translations never arise by stochastic means.
>
> All such systems in human experience require an information based
> design effort, an intellectual intervention putting the result of
> cognitive thought, knowhow, planning, precision and technique onto
> matter which is incapable of developing such information from its
> physiochemical properties, time and undirected energy.
I am sorry, but evolution basis has some mathematical weak point.So,
talking just as a scientist (I am an engineer) it seems quite
unlikely. Let me explain why:
If evolution is based in more or less random changes in the ADN, we
can conclude that for every individual there is a chance to mutate
(evolve).
This probability must be very small, as we do not see new breed of
evolved people every they, and we have not evidence that it happened
in the last 10.000 years or more.
Furthermore, the chances that at a moment in time, one mutation
hapens,must be a value related to the above probaility and the number
of individuals. The more the population, the bigger the chances for
one of this mutations. But also, the oposite holds correct. The
smaller the human population, the less likely that a mutation happens.
Now, let us consider the evolution of the total earth human
population. Today there are, haw many? let us say 3,5 billion humans.
We also have evidence that by the time the Homo Sapiens start, the
populations of ancestors were concentrated in a few places on earth,
and they could be no more than a few hundres thousends.
Obviously, the Homo Sapiens is not the fruit of just a mutation. But
of, how many? hundreds or thousends of consecutive mutations from
original ape.
Well, I have already outlined the problem and the incogruency with
Evolution Theory: If it were true, by the mutations trend required in
the past and the evolution in the number of individual, today we
should be attending to a lot of mutations around the world. We have
evidence (from Egipts and before) that that has not happen in the las
several thousends of years (we are the same as a egypt mmomified 6.000
years ago). The only mutations we see (in the news once in a while)
are nature aberrations which left alone would die (bebes joined by
their heads, bebes with mal-formations,...).
I am not saying that I am in favour of Creationism. In the same way as
evolution has a big scientific inconsistency, also creationsims has a
big inconsistency for any one that beleives in God. But, I will tell
you (if you are interested) some other day.
Ernest Major
<39eb9341-e9eb-4f11...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
soria...@gmail.com writes
>
>Well, I have already outlined the problem and the incogruency with
>Evolution Theory: If it were true, by the mutations trend required in
>the past and the evolution in the number of individual, today we should
>be attending to a lot of mutations around the world. We have evidence
>(from Egipts and before) that that has not happen in the las several
>thousends of years (we are the same as a egypt mmomified 6.000 years
>ago). The only mutations we see (in the news once in a while) are
>nature aberrations which left alone would die (bebes joined by their
>heads, bebes with mal-formations,...).
The people who study the subject don't think that the mutation rate is a
problem for the theory of evolution. (On a related topic, some people
consider the problem is not why evolution is so fast, but why it is so
slow; observed rates of evolution far exceed those required to account
for the fossil record.)
Your error lies in a gross misunderestimate of the mutation rate. The
actual mutation rate is well in excess of 1 per genome. (Also, your
examples more commonly occur from developmental anomalies, and not from
mutations.)
You also neglect that morphological change in evolution is episodic.
>
>I am not saying that I am in favour of Creationism. In the same way as
>evolution has a big scientific inconsistency, also creationsims has a
>big inconsistency for any one that beleives in God. But, I will tell
>you (if you are interested) some other day.
>
--
alias Ernest Major
chris thompson
Salem! Salem Hypothesis! Did I get it first?
Chris
mcv
> On Nov 26, 12:04 pm, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 26, 5:04 am, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>
>> >> Now if I can also take for granted that the universe has not existed
>> >> forever, but came into existence at some point in the distant past,
>> >> either by Big Bang or (some other) act of God, and that just after
>> >> its creation, the universe did not yet contain life, then it logically
>> >> follows that abiogenesis did occur, either by divine creation or by
>> >> complex molecules somehow attaining the ability to copy themselves.
>>
>> >> The three premisses that the conclusion that abiogenesis did occur
>> >> is based on, are:
>> >> 1. the universe came into being at some point,
>> >> 2. the universe did not immediately contain life just after that event,
>> >> 3. the universe does contain life right now,
>>
>> >> If you do not agree with any of these premisses, please let me know.
>>
>> > OK with me. Whats the point?
>>
>> You're the one claiming that abiogenesis didn't occur, remember? How is
>> it possible that once there was no life, now there is life, and yet at
>> no time in between did life spring into being?
>
> It did just not by the proposed materialistic, naturalistic,
> evolutiona based proposals.
>
> Creation not abiogenesis.
Divine creation of life ex nihilo is also still abiogenesis. It's just
not a *scientific theory* of abiogenesis, or a scientifically viable
hypothesis of abiogenesis. But it's still abiogenesis.
>> >> > That for which no viable cause can be directly or
>> >> > indirectly indicated, demonstrated or factually supported can never
>> >> > have occurred.
>>
>> >> Stuff can only exist if we can prove what caused it? So you're not
>> >> just denying that life exists, but that most of reality doesn't exist.
>>
>> > Where is the word prove in my post?
>>
>> "demonstrated or factually supported"? But it's not the word "prove"
>> that matters here, it's the claim that only stuff whose cause we can
>> indicate, demonstrate or support, that can exist. I'm sure some of
>> the Occam's Razor-wielding type atheists will gladly agree with you,
>> but I don't. There is a lot out there that we do not (yet?) know,
>> and a lot that we may never figure out. Absense of proof does not
>> constitute proof of absense.
>
> Every effect has a cause except God the ultimate uncaused cause.
Even if that's true (although quantum physicists might disagree),
that still doesn't mean that things can only exist if their cause
is *known*. If you stick to this silly claim, you end up denying
the existence of most of reality, because there's still a whole
lot more out there that we don't understand, than that we do
understand.
> Evolution and any other proposition which appeals to an uncaused
> effect or cannot provide sound evidence, demonstrate, or make a case
> acceptable to critical thinking, logic, reason, and analysis is
> actually a metaphysical belief.
But evolution does *not* apppeal to an uncaused effect, it *can*
(and does) provide sound evidence, it does make a case acceptable
to critical thinking, logic, reason and analysis.
>> >> >> > Thus it
>> >> >> > is unrepeatable and anything which is experiementally unrepeatable is
>> >> >> > unscientific by definition. Thus like creation it is metaphysical.
>>
>> >> >> Firstly, you're still talking about abiogenesis and not evolution, and
>> >> >> secondly, if abiogenesis happened once, it could happen twice, but the
>> >> >> lifeforms resulting from that second time will not be able to compete
>> >> >> with existing, already much better adapted life. Thirdly, it's the
>> >> >> observation that needs to be repeatable, not the event itself, fourthly,
>> >> >> the event itself might even be repeatable, but you need a fresh
>> >> >> environment with the right conditions and no existing life, and
>> >> >> probably a couple of million years, and that's just not very feasible
>> >> >> for modern science. And fifthly, not everything that's not repeatable
>> >> >> is automatically metaphysical.
>>
>> >> > Gobbltyggok meaningless fairy tale drivel.
>>
>> >> It's so much easier if people just say you're wrong and don't explain
>> >> why, isn't it? I'm trying to point out in detail exactly why you are
>> >> wrong. Read it, and you might learn something.
>>
>> > Nope its just such nonsense. Why does it follow that on the vast area
>> > of the earth that all these independent abiogenesisi results would be
>> > competing.
>>
>> All life is competing. Resources are limited.
>
> Suppose the events were isolated by 5,000 miles, an ocean, etc. where
> is the competition... for air??
For example, yes. The oxygen currently in the air is caused by life,
but it is highly toxic to the most primitive life forms. It's not at
all certain that completely new life can form with that much oxygen
around.
But the real issue here is that 5,000 miles of ocean is nothing to
the billions of years since the original appearance of life on our
planet. I'd be surprised if microbial life would need more than a
million years to spread throughout the world's oceans, and those
few million years are probably enough to deny organisms from a new
abiogenesis event a fair chance to compete.
Ofcourse it's not completely unimaginable that life arose independently
in two different locations, suitably isolated from each other, but so
far there's no evidence that that happened, and certainly not that
descendants of both survived to this day. Although it is ofcourse
possible that the number of viable mechanisms that life can be based
on is sufficiently small that both forms of life were compatible
enough that we can't tell the difference. But whatever the case, we
can see only one kind of life.
>> >> In this particular case, all that counts is that the enzyme that
>> >> enhances the organisms survival is produced. Exactly how directly
>> >> or indirectly this production happens, doesn't matter. This is
>> >> exactly the difference between systems resulting from evolution
>> >> and systems that have been designed. A purposeful design should
>> >> be understandable, have agreed-upon interfaces and standards.
>> >> Direct is better than indirect, and undocumented side effects are
>> >> hell, instead of something that can be relied upon.
>>
>> >> In evolution, it's all the other way around. Extreme complexity is
>> >> the fingerprint of evolution.
>>
>> > In all my time on the net this is the most rediculous statement ever
>> > posted. The music of Listz, the Mona Lisa, the Pentium IV processor
>> > all being enourmously complex arrangements of matter with purpose are
>> > not actually designed by an intellect because their very complexity
>> > means that the best explanation for their existence is the gradual
>> > rearrangement by pure chance of the matter from which they are made by
>> > natural physical laws unaided by any outside intellect.
>>
>> Have you ever compared an evolved processor to a Pentium? Pentiums
>> are simple in comparison. They have structure, dedicated components,
>> etc. The kind of circuits that John Koza creates through Genetic
>> Programming are nothing like that. They are way more complex.
>
> Which is why he uses 1,000 parallel Pentiums I suppose.
The slowness of evolution is why he needs that much processing power.
He doesn't have God's patience to wait millions of years.
> All of his
> work depends on his intellect, his skills, his concepts, his knowhow
> plus the borrowed works of other intelligent agents to develop his
> algorithms. It is never the result of purely unguided random
> evolutionary events.
His research isn't, but the evolved circuits are entirely the result
of evolutionary events. Ofcourse evolution itself isn't unguided and
random. Natural selection of reproductive fitness, and in Koza's case,
the fitness function he uses to test the fitness of his solutions,
provides the guidance. But the mutation is random, and while either
God or Koza could easily interfere in their respective projects,
should they so choose, random mutation is good enough to do the job.
>> >> > Can you nominate a code of communication, any code, that does not
>> >> > require an agreement of translation and conventional understanding
>> >> > between sender and receiver in the real world?
>>
>> >> Yes. The cries of a baby. The baby did not agree to any standard of
>> >> communication with its parents, the parent simply has to figure out
>> >> what the cries mean. Is it hungry? Tired? Soiled diaper? A good
>> >> parent will figure out what it means, perhaps even understand it
>> >> instinctively. But in the end, it works, because a parent who doesn't
>> >> understand the needs of the baby will have trouble getting the next
>> >> generation on its feet and ready to reproduce when it grows up. And
>> >> a baby who communicates in a way that the parent can't figure out
>> >> will have a harder time growing up and reproducing. And yet the parent
>> >> and baby didn't sit down to agree on a standard of communication,
>> >> because if they did, I'm sure the parent would have insisted on
>> >> something slightly less noisy.
>>
>> > And such noise contains no information whatsoever.
>>
>> It most definitely does. Do you have kids? Do you ignore their cries
>> because they are meaningless?
>
> So if I am sitting in a room next to an auditorium with no means of
> seeing the auditorium, no knowlwdge of the activities therein and I
> hear enormous applause, hands clapping and a din of cacaphonous voice
> tones I can directly infer due to its communication content (hee haw)
> that:
>
> The Eagles have finished a concert
> Hillery has given a speech
> Someone levitated an elephant
> Free pizza is available
> ad finitum
But it's still information: that something impressive has just happened
there.
> DO you work partime in a circus?
I'm afraid I don't. Would it give any particular insight into this
issue? Feel free to enlighten me.
mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel
Walter Bushell
mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Although it is ofcourse
> possible that the number of viable mechanisms that life can be based
> on is sufficiently small that both forms of life were compatible
> enough that we can't tell the difference. But whatever the case, we
> can see only one kind of life.
Or maybe they swapped gravy sometime in the rise of life as we know it.
Evopeach
A little intellectual honesty would be appreciated. see wikipedia
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the
formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily
used to refer to hypotheses about the chemical origin of life, such as
from a 'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and
most probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-
living but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis). The current models
of abiogenesis are still being scientifically tested.
Creation ex nihilo by any reasonable definition assumes God created
from nothing and not from non-living matter in the sense universally
meant in scientific circles.
Such dishonesty seems rampant in these discussions and renders
attempts at debate chaotic.
Jack Dominey
Evopeach <keato...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 12:04 pm, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
<snip>
>> You're the one claiming that abiogenesis didn't occur, remember? How is
>> it possible that once there was no life, now there is life, and yet at
>> no time in between did life spring into being?
>
>It did just not by the proposed materialistic, naturalistic,
>evolutiona based proposals.
>
>Creation not abiogenesis.
I'd be interested in actual attempts to answer any or all of the
following:
In what way does your explanation for the origin of life actually
explain anything? How is it different in explanatory power from
saying that the origin of life was an inexplicable event that cannot
be investigated?
Exactly what was created and when? Proto-bacteria four billion years
ago? The Vendian fauna? Ediacaran? Various flora and fauna
throughout geologic time? Humans 50,000 years ago? The entire
universe less than 10,000 years ago?
Is there any domain of human knowledge in which non-material,
non-natural explanations have been demonstrated to be sufficiently
useful that they are accepted by people with different religions?
--
"I'm gonna act grown up/That's my plan"
Jack Dominey
jack_dominey (at) email (dot) com
R.I.P. Bob Denver
Bloopen...@juno.com
abiogenesis (as Evopeach is understanding it) is possible does have
some relevance to evolution. Proof:
1. If common descent is true, then there is a common anscestor of all
life forms. (Premise, definition of common descent)
2. Abiogenesis of the common ancestor is impossible. (premise)
3. It is impossible that the common ancestor was created by any means
at all. (Def. of abiogenesis)
4. If the common ancestor was not created by any means at all, then it
did not exist. (Premise, possibly defintion of "created")
5. Therefore, the common ancestor did not exist.
6. Therefore, evolution is false.
So Evopeach is on to something when he says
"if [abiogenesis] never occurred
evolution never occurred because it had nothing to act on as a first
simple life form."
Several caveats however:
(a) By premise (1), if the evidence that evolution is true is great,
then a priori we have great evidence for the existence (and hence the
creation) of the common ancestor. In the minds of most people who
believe evoltuion, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming, so that
the common ancestor was created is practically certain. It is merely a
question of how.
(b) Not knowing how a common ancestor could have been created is not
evidence that it did not happen. It becomes evidence that it did not
happen if and only if, if it happened, we would expect to know how.
Thus we would have falsified a prediction of abiogenesis, and hence of
evolution. If a man is found shot and there is no sign that he was
depressed or that it was an accident, it is most reasonable to
conclude that he was murdered even if there are no fingerprints, no
DNA, no witnesses, no suspects, no gun, and the bullet can't be found.
It is quite possible to imagine scenarios where you can get away with
murder. On the other hand, suppose in a different murder, a detective
were to say that the bullet must have turned 90 degrees in midair. We
should reject his idea because if there were anything that could cause
a bullet to turn 90 degress, we should have seen it by now.
(c) Premise (3) assumes the broadest possible definition of
abiogenesis--basically, any kind of creation of living matter from non-
living matter, or spontaneous generation. (Merriam-Webster Online
dictionary) This creation could be the result of natural or
supernatural causes. However, when discussing the plausibility of
abiogenesis, we typically are discussing only the plausibility of a
naturalistic abiogenesis. I believe there are people, such as some of
the more mainstreamish ID advocates, who accept common descent but
believe that abiogeneis resulted from divine intervention. However,
most scientists hold to the idea that their work must hold to a
"methodological naturalism," meaning that they simply do not consider
supernatural agents, *as scientists.*
(d) As a corollary to the above, debates over the plausibility of
abiogenesis of an evolutionary common ansestor tend to assume certain
characteristics about the common ancestor and the conditions it was
created in. These assumptions do not follow directly from the theory
of common descent but from other observations (such as what conditions
on earth would be like 4 billion years ago). If, given this set of
assumptions currently used in the debate, abiogenesis turns out to be
impossible, then it is possible that scientists will drop common
descent or (more likely IMHO) they will say "Well, now we know that
the common ancestor wasn't like that"--thus attacking the assumptions
about the common ancestor, not its existence.
(e) It is true that, as a field of study, studying possible
naturalistic abiogenesis scenarios does not fall under evolutionary
biology. This is simply a matter of convention among the scientists.
I think it is fair because the two would involve different
methodologies and different expert knowledge. Similarly, geologists
use radiometric dating to arrive at the purpoted ages of rocks. Their
methodology assumes certain properties of radioactive decay. However,
it is not their job to be concerned about developing an explanation
for how radioactive decay works, or even if it exists. Their method
simply assumes that it does happen somehow, and this conclusion is
believed mostly on the authority of their colleagues working in
physics. (Of course they are free to dabble in physics if they want
to).
Critiques on the above reasoning are more than welcome.
Evopeach
> In <942701bc-efc2-4e2e-9d9d-b747b59b4...@e1g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Evopeach <keaton1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Nov 26, 12:04 pm, mcv <mcv...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> <snip>
> >> You're the one claiming that abiogenesis didn't occur, remember? How is
> >> it possible that once there was no life, now there is life, and yet at
> >> no time in between did life spring into being?
>
> >It did just not by the proposed materialistic, naturalistic,
> >evolutiona based proposals.
>
> >Creation not abiogenesis.
>
> I'd be interested in actual attempts to answer any or all of the
> following:
>
> In what way does your explanation for the origin of life actually
> explain anything? How is it different in explanatory power from
> saying that the origin of life was an inexplicable event that cannot
> be investigated?
It attributes the universe and life to a casual agent, God. It is an
argument by analogy to human experience. First we develop a concept in
our consciousness, then we formulate a plan for actualizing the
concept, then utilize our abilites (mental, physical, teleological),
technological and often cooperatively to place our concepts onto
inanimate matter to bring about order, complexity, functionality and
operability with designed purpose. This activity is observed everyday
in all cultures over all history. What we do not observe is matter
unguided by intellect and all the above organizing itself by random
combinations into machines, art, music, operating systems, machines,
computers, life forms , books, codes, etc.
>
> Exactly what was created and when? Proto-bacteria four billion years
> ago? The Vendian fauna? Ediacaran? Various flora and fauna
> throughout geologic time? Humans 50,000 years ago? The entire
> universe less than 10,000 years ago?
Since time flux is known to be different depending on the frame of
reference, gravitational field strength, location, velocity of the
observer, etc., arguments of this type are unappealing in a scientific
sense.
>
> Is there any domain of human knowledge in which non-material,
> non-natural explanations have been demonstrated to be sufficiently
> useful that they are accepted by people with different religions?
I believe that across many religions and civilizations the concept of
a creation event by an intelligence outside of the space time
continumn is known to be universal. The usefulness would be in the eys
of the beholder but since the concept is often the underpinning for
religious thought, it hase contributed to the organization, governing,
laws, morals, and philosophies of the various societies.
Evopeach
It is gratifyng to see someone post who understands true rhetoric as
opposed to sophistry, avoids sophmoric fallacies in his presentation,
exhibits common courtesy. This post merits careful analysis and
thought.
One comment may be appropriate: If it were true that an intelligent
agent is responsible for creation and all that we observe in the
universe including its operative laws then I would suggest the agent
was a scientist of enourmous, seemingly infinite intelligence and
ability. And again by analogy when we observe an invention, a
supremely beautiful work of art, a concerto, a symphony, a novel, etc.
we immediately attribute it to an intelligent agent(s) acting on
matter to effect their cognitive concepts, ideas, plans and bring them
into substanative being. In many cases we would and do refer to them
as consumate scientists.