| Author | Message | ||
     Sifo |
Tankhead, Just for the record, just a bit from the described experiment...
The experimenter is doing things to control the experiment. That is the very definition of Intelligent Design. Just as breeders do with dogs! | ||
| Tankhead |
SIFO SAYS:So the question is: Does the large amount of unique, useful, purposeful information seen in DNA support the scientific theory of chance or intelligent design. Article states:The inescapable conclusion is that genetic information can in fact emerge from random mixtures of polymers, as long as the populations contain large numbers of polymeric molecules with variable monomer sequences, and a way to select and amplify a specific property. I am not quite sure if this answers your question. It sounds to me like it does. But you did not answer my question, however I am assuming that taking the quote out of context and not really READING the article word for word, is maybe your admission of being not open minded. But that's cool. I tried.} SIFO SAYS: By the way, this is the same basic logic that breeders use when they select for a property such as coat color in dogs. Taken out of context: Article states. Bartel and Szostak’s results have been repeated and extended by other researchers, and they demonstrate a fundamental principle of evolution at the molecular level. At the start of the experiment, every molecule of RNA was different from all the rest because they were assembled by a chance process. There were no species, just a mixture of trillions of different molecules. But then a selective hurdle was imposed, a ligation reaction that allowed only certain molecules to survive and reproduce enzymatically. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Sifo; not to make the debate seem simplistic or petty but your statement; "...science doesn't have a theory that is workable regarding the origins of life, much less proven it ..." is absurd, and frankly laughable, considering the amount of research that has went into that single topic... There are multiple theories regarding exactly how life came about but the general consensus is (paraphrasing) electrical current stimulated the primordial 'ooze' thus causing reactions between the 'stuff' within it and single celled life formed, then evolved etc etc... This may be incorrect, most likely there are a few pieces of the puzzle left. However, as I've said before, that unknown factor does not give religion license to say 'god did it'... (actually it was Fred, he says he started all life on a bet with the holy spirit (aka scotch) and the platypus was indeed a gag...) Once you educate yourself you'll see the god argument is just as silly, and just as unverifiable, as the 'Fred' argument... | ||
| Sifo |
Tankhead, I was thinking about this while I was out and wanted to revise what I had said. You have actually pointed one of the reasons why. Yes they did show that you can get RNA to link into longer chains containing more information. The problem is that it's just random information. That is the crux of the question that I asked in the first place. How do you get from huge amounts of garbage to huge amounts of usable information without having many times more garbage than useful information. One other major problem with this experiment. I've never heard the theory that the primordial ooze was actually RNA soup. RNA isn't terribly stable and get broken down quite readily in nature. I understand that this experiment was set up to not replicate that either. So correct me if I'm wrong here, but an intelligent entity designed this experiment with a starting point that doesn't replicate what you would expect to find in the natural environment, and further controlled later stages of the experiment with the purpose of showing that random RNA strands could form longer random RNA strands. The experiment requires ID and fails to demonstrate adding value to the RNA. I won't even bother with the problems associated with RNA based life. I don't believe there's a single example of RNA based life that we know of. SD, The theory of electrifying ooze is a theory. Nothing more than that. It has never been shown to do more than achieve some simple amino acids. There are still many hurdles to explain all the steps necessary to explain the origin of life. At this point in time it just isn't a workable theory. Your displayed ignorance is astounding. Out for the night... | ||
| Tankhead |
Gracias SIFO. I understand what you are asking. Unfortunately WE (inteligent beings that live on earth that use science to try and understand things) will always be the ones to be doing scientific research who else would you suggest do the experiments, aliens? God? So again we agree to disagree. Can't say I did not try and answer your question I tried though. (Message edited by tankhead on September 20, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
>>> So again we agree to disagree. Disagree about what? Sifo's logic seems pretty simple. The information posted by SDave is about how some scientists created a bunch of random RNA then amplified it ten times over to achieve what they wanted. The claims that it proves anything concerning origins of life are ludicrous. At best they showed that if directed by scientists, RNA can combine to create new RNA. That falls flat. | ||
| Blake |
Chris, Blake: You said, "That wasn't quite a debate between Dawkins and Craig." (minus the trashing of Dawkins). I was responding because you accused me of lying... Huh? I'd like to see where I did that. I think you're confused again. But after looking at the video again, I felt that it was valid enough to qualify as a brief debate of concepts for all included in that forum (video). I'm wondering how since only a brief oratory by Dawkins was presented in that Video. Semantics is not something I will argue regarding this It's not semantics; what that video shows in not a debate between Dawkins and Craig. It shows Dawkins disingenuously attacking a misframing of Craig's position with no fear of rebuttal in that forum. REALLY lame. but I intended no disrespect nor was I being dishonest. Just sayin. I think that people have different definitions for what constitutes honesty, and also that some may be careless with the facts, tending to sometimes too eagerly accept that which supports their particular view without applying critical thinking. SDave is the poster child for that with his absurd readings of scripture. If I called you a liar, I apologize. I looked back through the thread here and didn't see it, and I sure don't recall it. That is NOT something I do lightly. It would be horribly out of character for me concerning such a trivial issue. | ||
| Blake |
My relevant comments on the contention of a Dawkins-Craig debate are here and here | ||
| Kenm123t |
This mixture that became life who mixed it who poured it who made sure it was pure? When your wife makes a cake the chemical reactions that occur are guided by who what? or did they jump in the bowl in the pan and on to the oven. Forget about the cake boss decorating it. We are carbon based life forms in this environment all life will be similar given the environment. Follow the carbon chain you wil find the circle of life. Co2 isnt a poison its where plants get there carbon. Back to the old story can't see the forest for the trees. | ||
| Tankhead |
tankhead said this: I have viewed the dawkins craig debate before many times. Blake said this:Impossible since they've never debated. Dr. Craig has addressed some of the flawed reasoning and faulty logic that Dawkins uses in his books. No big Blake really. At the time I thought you were accusing me of lying. If you meant that this really wasn't a debate in the true sense then that is fine. If you were calling me a liar, then I hope your motorcycle boots smell forever. (Message edited by tankhead on September 20, 2011) | ||
| Tankhead |
Uhhh Ken. WTF are you taking about. There is something called denaturalization: Same as when you cook a raw egg it will never be a liquid again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme It's called heat. WOW no disrespect but WOW BTW can someone tell me why I have to friggin sign on everytime I make a post. This crazy. Is this what everone does who spends this much time on this website has to do?????? Thats it!!!!!!! I think I broke my computer...edit edit edit (Message edited by tankhead on September 20, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
Chris, >>> No big Blake really. At the time I thought you were accusing me of lying. If you meant that this really wasn't a debate in the true sense then that is fine. If you were calling me a liar, then I hope your motorcycle boots smell forever. I said exactly what I meant. It is 100% factually accurate, and was stated to correct your error. If I ever intend to state that you a liar or that you've lied, it will look something like "you are a liar" or " that is a lie." I'm a very direct plain spoken kinda guy. It was pretty obvious that you were just mistaken/confused. | ||
| Sifo |
Gracias SIFO. I understand what you are asking. Unfortunately WE (inteligent beings that live on earth that use science to try and understand things) will always be the ones to be doing scientific research who else would you suggest do the experiments, aliens? God? So again we agree to disagree. Can't say I did not try and answer your question I tried though. Tankhead, It sounds like you don't understand at all. Perhaps you are pretending, perhaps you really don't understand. I'll break it down to a level that should make it perfectly clear to a 5th grader. The Miller-Urey experiment that SD eluded to where electricity was used on what what believed to be a representation of early earths atmosphere was an experiment designed to replicate as best as possible conditions that once existed and then see what happens. In this case the scientist has designed the experiment to the best of his ability to replicate nature to see what may likely have happened. How well this was done in this experiment is subject to debate, but that was the design criteria. This is NOT an example of intelligent design because there is no intent to design a situation that will give a predetermined result (such as for example setting out to design a motorcycle). This is an example of designing an experiment so observe what the result of certain natural conditions might lead to. Now compare that to the experiment that you brought up - Bartel and Szostak, 1993. This was in no way intended to be set up at it's starting point any reflection of any known or hypothesized natural conditions. Beyond that in running the experiment they have designed in interactions to filter the RNA to enhance the ability to chain bits together. The entire intent of the experiment isn't to see what would happen under a set of conditions. The entire experiment is set up to achieve a specific result, in this case chaining together bits of random RNA. This is an example of designing the conditions of the experiment to achieve a result. That is what makes it an example of intelligent design. Certainly there's nothing wrong with doing this sort of experiment. It's done all the time. It's important to understand what this sort of experiment demonstrates however. It certainly demonstrates that under certain conditions it is possible to get random RNA segments to bond with other random RNA segments creating longer chains of random RNA. What is doesn't demonstrate is how RNA may have randomly combined in nature to eventually comprise specific information that will lead to the origin of life. When the author of the article you liked to claimed...
I couldn't disagree with him more strongly. The origin of life requires specific useful information, not just mass quantities of random information. Sure a room full of monkeys may eventually type the actual words "To be, or not to be", but those words will certainly be wrapped in an immense amount of random garbage. Of course you could design that experiment to enhance the odds of sucess by only giving the monkeys keyboards with the B, E, N, O, R, T keys. That would be similar to how this experiment was set up to achieve a desired result. Still there was no claim by Bartel and Szostak to have achieved useful genetic information, just longer chains of random information. So how does this relate to the question I asked that got this experiment as an answer? First let me quote the question...
As I stated, theories predict things. Often times without even trying to predict certain things. When Einstein proposed his theory of reactivity for example, he wasn't looking for a theory that would explain time travel. Other scientists have taken this theory however and used it to see if it allows for time travel or not. It turns out that it does in fact predict that time travel is possible. In a similar way, theories on the origins of life will predict things. The theory that genetic information was assembled by random chance as your article attempts to support predicts that there will be very large amounts of random information for a very small amount of meaningful useful information. The Bartel/Szostak experiment verifies this prediction too. They have shown that when you start with random information in RNA and subject them to conditions that are favorable to get those strands to join, you get strands of more random information. That's what I missed when I initially dismissed this experiment as not being useful in this discussion. I was looking for an example from it that supported your side of the argument that I might need to address. I saw none, and none have been presented. What I missed was the example that demonstrates the prediction of large amounts of random data being present under the theory of a random origin of life. By contrast the theory of intelligent design as the origin of life predicts that an intelligent designer wouldn't add large amounts of garbage information into a strand of DNA (or RNA) that must be replicated repeatedly. It would just add a lot of extra replication that would be necessary to maintain life while adding no advantage. This is one of the few things that we can take a scientific look at to see which theory the DNA we see in life here on Earth seems to support. It turns out that the more we learn about the information contained in DNA we are finding out that there is a large amount of useful information and not nearly as much random information as would be expected from chance origins. As time marches on and we learn more about various parts of the DNA strands we are continually pushing that ratio of useful to random(or possibly just unknown purpose) information further toward supporting the ID theory. Please let me know if you feel anything I've presented needs further explanation to be understandable at a 5th grade level of science. I would be happy to break those areas down further. What I do find concerning is when people accuse others of being "flat Earthers", "deniers of science", etc. only to turn tail and run when science fails to support their dogma. Scientific hypocrites are among the worst kinds of hypocrites. There is no use for these people in science, yet there are many examples of these people holding high ranking positions in the current scientific community. Unfortunately I'm not referring only to the area of the origins of life either. These times are not the best of times for science. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
You know really this topic is much simpler when condensed to it's key issue. Yes there are many theories etc etc regarding this and that, some evidence points this way, some is counter-intuitive compared to existing knowledge etc... The point is that just because science can't explain something yet does not mean some invisible sky god did it, can you get that? We could argue the details of the theories for years and scientists actually do that so I'll let them be the experts. What you need to recognize is that answering ANY question with 'god' merely halts scientific endeavor and exploration and I showed with the Newton example some time ago. Science opens doors and helps mankind grow, religion hides behind them and keeps our society chained down by superstition and nonsense... How can anyone deny that simple point? 'god' is not the answer to a question just because you do not know. | ||
| Slaughter |
"The DEVIL made me buy this dress" | ||
| Sifo |
You know really this topic is much simpler when condensed to it's key issue. Yes there are many theories etc etc regarding this and that, some evidence points this way, some is counter-intuitive compared to existing knowledge etc... The point is that just because science can't explain something yet does not mean some invisible sky god did it, can you get that? We could argue the details of the theories for years and scientists actually do that so I'll let them be the experts. What you need to recognize is that answering ANY question with 'god' merely halts scientific endeavor and exploration and I showed with the Newton example some time ago. Science opens doors and helps mankind grow, religion hides behind them and keeps our society chained down by superstition and nonsense... How can anyone deny that simple point? 'god' is not the answer to a question just because you do not know. And when the science points to there being an intelligence behind the origins of life, what do you do? In your case it seems to be ignore that piece of science just because it fits your dogma. Please realize that I'm not using this example of DNA from a single study that goes against the rest of the body of knowledge. It is the growing body of scientific knowledge that is continually adding more support to the idea that life didn't come about from purely random events. Any idea when you may have time to actually address my question directly? You've been stalling now since Friday I believe. | ||
| Tankhead |
Sifo: This comment shut me down.It sounds like you don't understand at all. Perhaps you are pretending, perhaps you really don't understand. I'll break it down to a level that should make it perfectly clear to a 5th grader. Why when someone tries to offer information you feel the need to act so pretentious and insult them? I don't get it. I really am asking you to stop with the immature comments. I tried to offer an explanation (not my explanation, I don't have an opinion and honestly have not read enough to form an opinion) You seemed to have a high level of a sense of urgency about it so I tried to offer something that may or may not help you out. It had nothing to do with me. I was not defending or promoting any agenda. I really don't care enough about what you are asking to do much research about it at this time. Calm down friend. You don't need to insult me. BTW I read your remark to my fifth graders that I teach they had blank stares.  JK. This is ridiculous. I am not a scientist. Start emailing a scientist if you would like answers. Good Luck | ||
| Sifo |
Not sure what give the idea that I'm not calm. I do find it interesting that just previously you wanted to "agree to disagree", now you claim to have no opinion. I'm not sure how to reconcile those statements. You have been doing this numerous times in multiple threads on this subject. It's difficult to read your posts and really believe that you have no opinion. Perhaps if you don't want to be insulted you should take a stab at honest discussion. It's far more productive than pretending to not grasp simple concepts when the facts aren't stacking up in your favor. Perhaps 5th graders need better teachers.  JK. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Sifo; Rather than a long drawn out factual statement citing sources as I've tried with others in the past I'll try this. Here's a simple explanation of this ridiculous ID garbage, which is NOT a scientific theory. It's a new name for the god of the gaps, (google it etc)... Anyway... IF there was a designer... then frankly he sucks at designing. 1. The majority of species that ever lived on Earth are gone so he can't design anything to last... 2. If it was designed then why would there be thousands of mutations before a new species actually emerged? Wouldn't he just 'get it right'? He is god right? Does god need practice? 3. If it was designed then why do you think he gives two sh*ts about this planet, let alone one carbon based species on that planet, further let alone you having a 'personal relationship' as many claim? If it was designed wouldn't he have more than one pet? He made billions of galaxies and he only cares about one? hmmm illogical at best... (*it'd be easier if I snippeted these for the list but ID is such a silly concept that a 5 year old can take it apart...) 4. We can manipulate DNA through various methods, so does that then make us gods as well? 5. Again simply put, ID is also shot down by simple logic. If you can't find an answer to a question you can't just toss GOD IN IT! GET IT? ID is a simple minded attempt to refute progressing scientific evidence that actually shows and demonstrates how things happened. As more discoveries are found the religions will continue to grasp at more and more straws such as this ID BS. Eventually, if the religions don't kill everybody first, science will have most of the answers and religion will fade away into antiquity like the Pharaohs, the Greek and Roman gods, Ra, Horus, Osiris etc etc etc... ID is BS, no proof, no evidence, nothing... end of story... just ridiculous speculation from weak minded religiously indoctrinated people afraid to grasp their own mortality or simply to vain to realize you're just a piece of the cosmos, nothing more, nothing less. When you die, you will rot, things will eat you, convert your body into energy and life will continue on. As you have taken from the universe, you shall eventually contribute. | ||
| Reindog |
You care to rephrase that? The people of faith on Badweb have shown themselves to be intelligent, knowledgeable, open to debate, honest, and kind. The same can not be said of someone making that kind of blanket statement. I am not particularly religious but one word comes to mind: FAIL. Tone it down, buck-o. | ||
| Tankhead |
Sifo: perhaps you really don't understand. I don't think I did understand, maybe I misunderstood but again I wasn't trying to say that I agree to disagree with your statements just the RESPONSE that I gave about the article and you. Again, I, personally don't have an opinion, I DON"T HAVE AN OPINION. I was offering the article to you to check out, I quickly read it and thought it might help you answer some questions. That is it. I don't have an opinion about it. I don't care to debate it because I don't know enough about it to debate it. I hope that is OK with you as an answer. | ||
| Blake |
SDave, >>> 1. IF there was a designer... then frankly he sucks at designing. Based on the end product? You and science can do better? LOL! You seem to be critical of how the design was accomplished, not of the end product. It's a trivial and lame point to the issue of origins. Nor is it scientific. >>> 2. If it was designed then why would there be thousands of mutations before a new species actually emerged? Please provide the scientific evidence that proves that actually happened. >>> Wouldn't he just 'get it right'? Speaking of the end product, what did he get wrong? Is this a scientifically based observation of yours? Does science declare which observable processes are right or wrong? Seems you've made yourself god in that. Whatever it is, it isn't science. >>> He is god right? Does god need practice? You again seem to confuse the end product with the means employed to get there, and seem to be critical of the process of creation. You seem to want to demand that god fit your idea of what he ought to be and how he ought to behave. Neither of the above two questions are scientific in nature, rather they are mere rhetorical pontificating. Still no science from you on this. >>> 3. If it was designed then why do you think he gives two sh*ts about this planet, let alone one carbon based species on that planet, further let alone you having a 'personal relationship' as many claim? This is totally off track concerning the question of origins, created or accidental. It is a question of religion and the possible nature of a creator. It is not scientifically based at all, just another angry atheist questioning god. If you invested much in creative effort, building a custom bike or a beautiful work of craftsmanship, do you not care about it? Now imagine that creative effort produced something alive. You wouldn't care about it? Of course you would. Why would you expect differently of god? >>> If it was designed wouldn't he have more than one pet? He made billions of galaxies and he only cares about one? hmmm illogical at best... Who said he only cares about one? You're making stuff up again; that's a bad habit you ought to drop. Still no science in your commentary here or in your questions. I thought you were all about science. Where is it? >>> (*it'd be easier if I snippeted these for the list but ID is such a silly concept that a 5 year old can take it apart...) Yet you've not yet managed to do so with anything resembling any kind of scientific argument or even a coherent logical argument. >>> 4. We can manipulate DNA through various methods, so does that then make us gods as well? No, it makes us intelligent and curious. Being a god entails being able to exist outside of the confines of space and time as well as being able to cause the beginning of the universe, time itself, and life. Still waiting for you to provide your science based refutation of ID. So far just rhetoric. >>> 5. Again simply put, ID is also shot down by simple logic. Where is this "simple logic" you pretend to display? >>> If you can't find an answer to a question you can't just toss GOD IN IT! GET IT? I agree. What I do is examine facts, evidence, the conclusions of science. That alone provides convincing evidence in support of a designer. If you don't like where the scientific evidence points, you ought not to just toss wishful thinking into it. Get it? You repeatedly claim science and logic but offer none of either in support of your contention that what we contend, ID, is false. That you choose to repeatedly engage in incredibly derisive and hateful commentary rather than scientifically oriented discussion is just more evidence of the absolute bankruptcy of your position. Nine out of ten psychologists agree. | ||
| Sifo |
Tankhead, You have made it clear at times which side of this you come down on, even cheering SD on at times when you think he has made a point. You said you were going to get to my question when you had time and eventually did. Now suddenly you have no opinion. OK. SD, You are the one that was crying about people not following science. I've been trying for days now to get you to engage in the conversation that you cry people wont have. This is your response? That's pathetic. | ||
| Tankhead |
Sifo: For the last time. I had no opinion about YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR question. I have openly said that I doubt I would have have an answer for you (my answer). F*ckin A. READ WHAT I WRITE . Leave it alone already. | ||
| Sifo |
I think I said OK. Yep, here's the quote "OK". OK?  | ||
| Aesquire |
Dave, I tend to agree on "the god of the gaps". I, personally, am content to let "I don't know" be the springboard to wild guesses, as long as you don't ask me to pay for it. ( like accuracy to .007 degrees F over centuries in a computer model.....that can't predict last year. ) I don't take "that sunset proves there's God, 'cause it's just too cool to be random" as crazy, or science. Just a nice thought. Don't think I can give you mathematical proof of the non-existence of aliens, either. Don't care about the Drake Equations, way too many assumptions to be real science. nice concepts though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation | ||
| Aesquire |
That alone provides convincing evidence in support of a designer. Subjectivity is implied in "convincing", and I can agree it Sure looks like a created place to me. Still think ID is "creationism" with a new paint job, and fail to see the logic jump to proof of any particular faith. Not a hard science but a philosophical argument. besides, a Jesuit would explain how you can't prove God, since that disproves God. Ask one. makes my head hurt. ( and, oddly, knuckles, but that's probably PTSD ) | ||
| Sifo |
and fail to see the logic jump to proof of any particular faith. ID doesn't support any particular faith. | ||
| Aesquire |
More to learn. Science is never settled. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1494 7363 Now in fiction I liked Hogan's human origin plot. Humans are from another world...but related.... aliens... read the book, it's fun. ( fiction ) http://www.amazon.com/Inherit-Stars-James-P-Hogan/ dp/0345334639/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_4 | ||
| Sifo |
I ran across this quite by accident looking for something else. Honestly I wouldn't have known who Dawkins was if not for this discussion. It is tangential to the question I've posed about the amount of junk information in the DNA strand. I don't believe that there is a known, natural mechanism to edit the DNA. It simply gets replicated, end of story. |
