Intelligent Design

[Michael]

Originally posted by SVRP
Has there ever been an observation of a mutation that has improved the genetic code by adding new genes (adding new genetic material to an existing DNA molecule, which with its addition increases the number of genes) with meaningful instructions in order to build a new physical feature?

A mutation is a change in AA in a gene. I already went through this in the E. coli. example. Re read it.

Michael wrote Evolution is dependent on the random mutations. Therefore, if there are no mutations then there is no evolution. Did I get that right?

Mutation is an essential part of the Evolutionary Process. Weather you get it or not, I’m not so sure. I just don’t feel you have had adequate schooling in Chemistry and Biology?

Aren’t human beings at the top of the DNA ladder? Aren’t there more genetic material and information in the DNA code to construct the human body as compared to all other living creatures?

No

So if dogs and man have a common ancestor, how did man get more genetic material in his DNA than a dog?

Difference species have different “amounts” of DNA due to various causes - - some of which include gene duplications, mutations, chromosomal changes due to improper cell division, et cetera…

Actually the more we learn about the living cell the more we learn about its precision and complexity.

Read the blind watchmaker before going into this again. It is not a valid argument.

The reason why chirality in DNA molecules is a critical factor in the building blocks of life is because every single nucleotide in the DNA chain must be of one orientation (right-handed) in order for the entire chain to work. Mistakes are not tolerated. The same holds true for amino acids in proteins (left-handed) for a protein to work.

“tolerated” is a little anthropomorphic - but I think I see you’re point).

Then another factor must be considered- out of the more than 80 amino acids found on earth, only twenty are life-relevant amino acids.

Well this is wrong (its most life are made of these 20AA … NOT --> life is only these 20AA) but do go on..

Now any model calculations will have to include the probability of selecting the correct twenty left-handed amino acids out of the 80-plus amino acids of equal orientation (a racemic mixture).

Not correct. Not everything uses the identical 20 AA.

AA are used to make proteins. Of course some cells use the same AA as our cells other don’t. The point is to construct a “thing” that can “catalyze” a reaction. This “thing” can be a protein using the 20 AA that our body uses. This thing can also be RNA (enzymatic RNA). This thing could be a protein composed of different AA than what our body’s cells use. Get a Biochemistry test book and open it before going back to this, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Other factors to consider- any protein chain can have many of each different kind of the twenty life-relevant amino acids. However, the order of the amino acids in a protein determines its function (or what you wrote earlier, directly related to its structure).
Therefore, these requirements are necessary for construction of the DNA molecule and the first cell: 1) the correct life-relevant amino acids with the proper left-handed orientation (only 20 can be chosen, the more than 60 none-life-relevant ones cannot produce life),

Lost again. The 60 non-life-relevant ones can not produce life? What do you mean here? Am I to understand you are saying that they can not produce proteins capable of catalyzing enzymatic reactions? Plus it’s not just those 20 AA. Please crack open a biochemistry book and go to the chapter on AA before posting next.

2) they must be placed in combinations that work (like letters into words),

I agree .. somewhat. They must be placed into a combination that works (well, if they are to catalyze a reaction). However, unlike a word AA can be placed in slightly different combinations and the protein can still function – and function just fine. For example humans, rats, mice, dogs, monkeys, etc.. have common proteins yet the protein’s structures may be slightly changed. For example Human p75 receptor is 75% identical to mouse p75 receptor.

3) they must be placed in chains that work (like words into sentences),

Again, 1) yes I understand what you mean by “AA chains” but this is not like words in a sentence - in that the AA can be substituted and the protein still function.
I’m not sure if I like the word analogy, Nevertheless let me try a word example and see if I can make it work:
1) AA are linked together like a chain.
2) Similar to links in a chain AA are linked together

Both sentence function and give the same sort of information. I haven’t thought of proteins as words so I wouldn’t be willing to take this analogy to far.

4) the same must be done with the nucleotides in the DNA chain (but with right-handed orientation). None can be random.

Ah, but we see there can be changes made. “None can be random” is not true for proteins nor for DNA nor RNA for that matter. The truth is some can be random.

The formation of the DNA molecular that produces the proteins required for life is extremely complex and very precise.

Relatively so. It’s extremely complex relative to something not so complex yet not as complex as something more complex. As for it’s level of preciseness, well as we have shown it is easily changed. Regardless, this is not a valid argument. An atom is extremely complex – should we dismiss atomic orbital theory? Of course not!

Microbiologist Harold Morowitz calculated the odds a cell randomly assembling under ideal conditions to be 1 chance in 10^100,000,000,000 (that’s 1 with 100 billion zeroes after it). Compared to winning a lottery with 1 chance in 10^6 (that’s 1 with six zeroes after it) or the likelihood of being struck by a meteorite, which is 1 chance in 10^12 (that’s 1 with twelve zeroes after it).

Of course now we’re sliding out of evolution again. That isn’t to say the same sorts of idea’s (ie change and selection) aren’t employed to make a How-A-Cell-Arose theory. But it wouldn’t be evolution. It would be a How-Life-Arose theory.

Regardless, I have never heard of a credible scientist theorize that a cell just randomly put itself together. If Harold has calculated the odds of that (we’ll assume it’s right) then I would say that was a good gesture but didn’t address much as no one is proposing a cell spontaneously arose.

And (stated yet again in this post) the only time I seem to hear about it is when proponents of ID bring it out and say something like: the chances of a cell arising spontaneously are 1:10^10^10^10…. They forget to mention that no one is advocating this is the case.

SVRP, we’ve covered this ground. No serious scientist today is proposing a cell “poof” spontaneously assembled all in one go. I promise, you will not find an article in a reputable scientific journal (for example: found on National Institutes of Health PubMed medical journal library) that proposes a cell “poof” spontaneously self assembled into a modern completely working cell that you and I are made up of.

Richard Dawkins said in the book, ‘The Blind Watchmaker’, “Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.”

This is true

Unfortunately, we know time is not infinite.

This may or may not be true (infinite in one direction is not known).
However I do see you’re point the Earth has been here for a finite time.

With the experimental physics of Hubble in 1929, Penzias in 1964, and Smoot in 1992, combined with the verification of general relativity, we know that time and space had a beginning.

A beginning of this universe, which may a fluxuation of something else …. But that’s neither here nor there and really has nothing to add to the debate of Evoltion.

Several other methods have measured the age of the universe to a finite age of 13 to 15 billion years. With Morowitz’s odds and the time constraint of 15 billion years there is no way the first living cell could have been formed by chance. It is too short of time and highly improbable.

SVRP please provide a reputable journal that has published this. You can not put forth a theory that is totally unacceptable (spontaneously cell self assembly) and then say because you knocked down your own straw-man (ie: it’s not likely to happen) .. ergo ID is true. We have had this discussion. It’s like me saying. There’s a 1^10^10^10^10… chance you will grow wings and fly around in the next 5 minutes and you don’t ergo God is a woman. It just is not logical. Please make and attempt at logic.

The only alternative is intelligent design.

Wrong.
There’re are many alternative’s to how life arose other than ID, silt theory being one of them.

Not according to Professor Louis Bounoure who declared in “The Advocate”(p. 17, March 8, 1984), “Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.”(Professor Bounoure was a former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum. Later he became Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.)

The article is a personal opinion not a scientific publication (which are peer-reviewed by professionals in the field prior to publication).
1) Nor, is The Advocate a scientific journal. As a matter of fact I can’t even find it in a Scientific Journal database. You may as well have said the “National Enquirer” for all that science is concerned.
2) Appealing to a higher authority does nothing to further your ID argument. You need to have facts. For which ID has none. If it did they would be published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. They are not. At least not that I can see. If they are please send the recent article to me. I am more than willing to give it a read. By peer-reviewed it must be found at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Libraries or the National Science Foundation (NSF) Libraries. Not in the Enquirer, Fox News, US Today, or The Advocate.

And not according to these biologists in response to an editorial in ‘Nature’ magazine, February 26, 1981.

Unlike you I HAVE THE ARTICLE HERE in front of me. Please see the post below this one for my response.

So what do these scientists know about the evidence that we don’t know in order to make them write this letter or make the above quote?
You should actually read the article’s before posting them. I think this is an insight into your “open-mindedness”. Basically you scratch at ANYTHING which may further you’re ID argument.

Even to the point of MAKING UP LIES.
Yes SVRP I caught you lying yet again.

You see, as I said I have the Nature Vol. 289, 26 Feburary 1981, p735 one page article in front of me. It says nothing advocating ID as you will see below in my second post.

If evolution was true shouldn’t they be the proponents and in the forefront proclaiming the veracity of the facts for evolution? They must see the evidence firsthand. Why would they write such a letter?

This one pissed me off enough to write an additional post below. Please take time to see it as it wasted my morning getting the articles.

Unfortuantely, Mr. Dawkins sidesteps general relativity and the Law of Entropy to give a “saleman’s” explanation of how the natural processes resulted in life. You as a scientist with a PhD should have questioned his approach instead of being “sold” on his theories.

See above comment and then the post below.
1)Explain to me what aspect of General Relativity Dawkins was supposed to discuss in his essay on Evolution?
2) As for Entropy: I can answer it myself, we destroy larger molecules (ie AA, Carbohydrate, lipid, et cetera) reducing them into CO2 and H2O and in the process create more disorder. If you know enough about Entropy to ask the question you’ll understand the answer. If not, study a year of two of introductory Chemistry and Physics then you’ll understand it.

SVRP: The watchmaker argument is an effective argument (sentences co-joined by Michael)

No it is not. And to make the case you will have to get a scientific journal article and make it. Or do research and publish one yourself. To just state some crap endinf your preamble with a “ its true” doesn’t do it.
That’s not how science works.
I’m sure you at least do not need that explained.

The scientific approach on this subject is best described using this illustration. Imagine you are a forensic scientist in your town… When approaching the unknowable you should be open-minded to all explanations no matter how ridiculous they may sound. All scientific theories must be tested. If even the Theory of Relativity is tested today through the rigors of scientific scrutiny, shouldn’t the Theory of Evolution be tested just as well? Place your presuppositions on the shelf, be open-minded, and let the evidence speak for itself.

1) Not all scientific theories need to be tested. That’s idiotic. Should we test the theory that little Lepricons push electrons around in the Electromagnetic Theory? Of course not. Then again I see you said “scientific theories”. Well then SVRP, I guess ID doesn’t even need to be tested as it has never published results in a scientific journal and hence is not scientific.
2) Evolution is time and again proved correct by science. I know because I (unlike you) read the journal articles.

Why is it SRVP you believe in ID over Evolution? Could it be because you are a Christian and you need ID to validate your personal beliefs? If not than why don’t you do what I have asked and read the books and then find a credible published article in a credible journal (NIH NSF) that has published ID theory. I propose it is you SRVP that are not “open-minded”. If I was to write ID is true. That’s all it would take for you and you could be happy in life believing that. How do I know this? Because you either lie (which I don’t truly believe) or NEVER look anything up for yourself (which I do believe). You just want someone from science to tell you yes there is a god. If you truly wanted knowledge you’d look up something and read it for yourself. But you never do. You go to ID websites and suck in all the BS they feed you and leave feeling you’ve vindicated you’re beleife in god. The truth is you have a little nagging twitch in your brain that says something isn’t quite right. It’s called logic. One day you may use it to see that ID is all a bunch of propaganda bull shit.

Sorry SRVP but ID is not true it is false.

 

[Michael]

SVRP this is the FORTH TIME in almost as many posts that I have found you posting quotes that are taken COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT. I want you to read that again because it is a serious waste of mine and your time each time you do so. This is the fourth time you have posted quotes taken completely out of context. This time I had to walk all the way over to the storage to get this old article and for posterity’s sake the proceeding article it, itself, was refereeing to.

Which ever website you are posting this crap from is completely manipulating you. It would be a good thing if you stopped wasting your time reading these ID propaganda sites. And maybe, just maybe, stop for a minute and think: Why are there no ID papers published in credible scientific journals? Do ID advocates have an agenda? Why is evolution a course and even a major at credible Universities (Oxford, Stanford, Yale, UM, UCSD, et cetera.) and ID not even considered? And lastly, why is it that each time I post a quote Michael goes and gets it only to find out it was again taken completely out of context and Michael is now fed up with the sloppy posts from me when I should do this sort of research myself prior to posting. Maybe the answer is that ID sites are loads of shit and I should just pay the $5.99, purchase the Blind Watchmaker or The Selfish Gene, and read them as Michael has and form my own opinion.

Sorry for the sarcasm but surely you can see how vexing this gets?

SVRP, the books are dirt cheap and they are easy to read. Does Richard Dawkins have a salesman’s approach? One could see it that way (maybe one with a hidden agenda – like ID). Or (and the real answer) Richard Dawkins wrote these books for the layman to read for him or herself (someone like YOU). You do not do Dr. Dawkins justice by this sort of crap, and I quote: Unfortuantely, Mr. Dawkins sidesteps general relativity and the Law of Entropy to give a “saleman’s” explanation of how the natural processes resulted in life. which I am sure you again posted from some non-credible ID site. Open the books, read them, then instead of coming to me with this crap just say (1) yeah makes sense (2) no it doesn’t make sense, I don’t understand A, B, C…

Now for the Forth Misquote (and as you will see Misquote is generous perhaps downright LIE would be more appropriate.

Originally posted by SVRP
”As working biologists at the British Museum of Natural History we were astonished to read your editorial ’Darwin’s death in South Kensington’. How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise? You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase ‘If the theory of evolution is true…’ Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favor of it and as yet no better alternative. But the theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared.” (This letter was signed by twenty-two of the Museum’s staff of biologists and appeared in Nature magazine, Vol. 290, p. 82, March 12, 1981)

Below is the REAL ARTICAL EXACTLY as printed in the journal Nature

Originally quoted in The Journal Nature
Sir- Your leading article “Darwin’s Death in South Kensington” Nature 26 Febuary, p 735) illustrates “the rot at the museum” by quoting a passage from our 1978 Guide. How odd, for that passage was draft (by me) as a conscious paraphrase of the part of Chapter 13 in The Origins of Species in which Darwin discusses the relationship between his theory and systematic. “Groups-within-groups classification”, which you take to be a “popular euphemism for cladism” and its attendant heresies, is not hidden propaganda but a contraction of Darwin’s words – “the grand fact in natural history of the subordinate of group under group”.

The “weasel words” which so incense you are “If the theory of evolution is true.” I have tried replacing them by your own criterion of truth: “If the theory of evolution is not an open question among serious biologists, the features used to classify species in groups . . . were acquired by the common ancestor of the group.” It does not read well.

You readers may try substitution in the equivalent passage from Darwin: “On the view that the natural system is founded on descent with modification . . . the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent.” And your readers can answer for themselves you question “what purpose except general confusion can be served by these weasel words?” The reader may also be able to judge whether the rot is to be found here or in Little Essex Street.
Colin Patterson
British Museum (Natural History),
London SW7, UK

Did those look like the same quotes? NOT HARDLY! Do you now see how the ID Propaganda machine works? How they expect that you’ll act like a good little Christian and eat all the shit they shovel your way (which you did/do) in the hopes that they can invalidate your one true fear – that the whole thing is a farce.

YOU posted it SVRP not me. So either you’re a liar or you are being lied to. It’s that simple.

 

[Gravage]

Re: Re: Intelligent Design

Originally posted by JOHANNsebastianBACH
I believe the outside inteligent hand to be Aliens from outerspace. It sounds pretty crazy,,,I know,,, but no more crazy than the belief that jesus is the son of god, or god created everything. something must also have created god in this case.

Completely agreed.

 

[Gravage]

Re: Re: Question

Originally posted by Zero Mass
It is just a theory, whatever it hypothesizes is much better than what the bible teaches.

There is no evidence that the mass ever had to be created in the first place, it could have always existed. The creation of the universe could be an ongoing process, like the seasons, the universe could blossom, grow, whither, and then die only to be reborn again, we will never truly know, this we can only think about and observe evidence for.

When everything thing was massed together, the universe was probably as big as all that stuff, who knows...

The universe does not have to be created by a intelligent being, there are many chaotic events in the universe and in nature, and I have see no proof, posted on this thread or anywhere else, that suggests any sentient supernatural force has effected this natural world at all.

If you find any such evidence, please post it, everything else is just speculation and belief. All the material signs in this world point to a naturalistic universe, in my opinion.

ZERO MASS

I completely agree with you,Zero Mass.

 

[sage]

MUSINGS ON LIFE

1) THE BEGGININGS OF COMPLEXITY

Can life arise naturally from simple abiogenetic materials following simple laws of physics and chemistry? It is a question that must be tackled in parts. One distinct feature of life is its complexity. It has both spatial and temporal complexity. It is much more complex than anything surrounding it. So one necessary(but not sufficient) step is to show that simple systems can in fact spawn complex systems naturally.
In ordinary situations this is not possible. Because any closed system gains entropy with time and increasing of entropy means a decrease in order and complexity. But life is not a closed system-it is an open non-equilibrium system. And such systems can show great complexity.
The whirlpool formed in a tub when the plug is removed and the tap is opened is a good example. A whirlpool is decidedly a complex structure that is formed from the simple still water the tub initially had. It is able to maitain itself indefinitely and is an open non-equilibrium system. If we consider the tub alone then we are forced to conclude that the entropy within the tub has increased. Note too that the whirlpool structure is maintained even though the water molecules that constitute it constantly changes with time(as old water is removed through the plug and new water enter through the tap). This is similar to the case in any living entity whose body is constantly recycled even though its structure remains essentially constant.
Lord Rayleigh in 1916 studied the emergence of complex pattern in a thin layer of oil heated from below. A thin layer of fluid is poured on the surface of a metal disc. It forms a uniform symmetrical layer and is thus a very simple system. The fluid is now gently heated from below. At first nothing happens. But a vertical heat gradient is being established from below. After exceeding a critical value hexagonal honey-comb like patterns appear at the surface of the fluid. These are called Rayleigh-Benard cells, best observed by sprinkling aluminium dust on the fluid’s surface. As heat is increased and the system taken progressively further from equilibrium, several different types of patterns may emerge like- parallel rolls;triangles;spirals;targets and patchwork quilts. As you might have guessed that such structures arise due to the formation of convection cells within the fluid. The honeycomb structures increase the efficiency with which heat is transferred to the environment. If we were to skip from cell to cell we might encounter a pattern of cells which rotates in either clockwise-anticlockwise-clockwise (CW-AW-CW) sense or in anticlockwise-clockwise-anticlockwise(AW-CW-AW) sense. However it is impossible to predict which of the two patterns will emerge- like tossing of a coin. The interesting feature of phenomenon is that, whereas below the threshold level each molecule of water operates as an independent, disconnected and randomly moving agent, above the it each molecule cooperates with huge number of molecules to generate complex-high ordered pattern. The number of molecules involved in a single convection cell exceeds 10^20 molecules. In addition to local cooperation, distant regions of the fluid become correlated and participate in global long range alternating cells. Thus as a consequence of an energy flux, order and complexity can be spontaneously generated in a previously simple system.
the two processes of generating complexity from situ are phenomenon of SELF-ORGANISATION. The examples above give self-organising behavior in physical systems. What about chemical systems as life is after all built in chemistry.

In 1951 Boris Belousov demonstrated that if a simple autocatalytic chemical reaction when taken far from equilibrium spontaneously undergo a phase transition and generate complex behaviour. The chemical system is taken far from equilibrium by adjusting the rates at which reactants and product are pumped in and out of the flux. Once a critical reactant/product ratio has been reached the system begins to exhibit complex behavior. In case of the particular system studied by Belousov and Zhabotinski there began a periodic colour change from yellow to colourless. If not well stirred, the concentration of reactants and products is not spatially uniform. Under these conditions spirals and concentric waves are generated within the system thus creating spatial complexity superposed on temporal complexity. Many similar examples of chemical self organization exist.

thus simple systems does generate complex behavior. Life is undoubtedly complex. But it is also an open far-from equilibrium system like the ones referred to above. Thus at least theoretically it is possible that complex life could have been created from simple chemical systems. Of course the degree of complexity in life is far more than any of the complex systems I have described here. But I am only beginning my case.

 

[MarcAC]

Accolade

Good job SVRP. You have them all on the defensive it seems.

 

[Mucker]

Michael, this is very much how I have started to see things in recent years. It does seem that there is a design to a lot of things, our bodies at the least! Plus if we are the result of Evolution then there would surely not be a conscience, something that has pretty much ben proven on these threads. The result of a conscience alone surely show there is not more to us than meets the eye; all the evidence to find God is here, around us.

I am also going to read that book 'Poster'. Thank you for the information on the book.

 

[StrangeDays]

Re: Accolade

Originally posted by MarcAC
Good job SVRP. You have them all on the defensive it seems.

I believe in an element of intelligent design as part of my religious faith, but even after reading Behe and Dembski and following threads like this one, I can't see any remotely convincing scientific basis for ID. I for one don't feel defensive at all, as I have yet to see SVRP present anything resembling a smoking gun. I respect SVRP's opinions, as I do those of other ID proponents, but it seems to me that those who swim against the tide should exercise a little more restraint if they want to avoid losing all credibility.

 

[Mucker]

Strangedays what do you mean by 'ID'?

 

[StrangeDays]

Intelligent design.

 

[Raithere]

Misconceptions

Originally posted by SVRP
The DNA code has been defined as a set of instructions, analogous to an English message.

This is a very common misperception. DNA is functional in nature rather than informational, more analogous to the teeth of a key than to language. DNA is not a coding system that is written to and read from in order for instructions to later be carried out by some other mechanism; it is the mechanism of action itself.

As to the 'increase' of information, it is really quite simple. The information is caused by physical changes over time. Think of the sediment deposits at the mouth of a river. The physical changes over time are 'recorded' in the deposits. Seasonal or other changes in rainfall, temperature, etc. affect the type and amount of sediment deposited. The process does not require intelligent input... only change over time.

~Raithere

 

[Michael]

Originally posted by Mucker
… It does seem that there is a design to a lot of things, our bodies at the least!

This is the way the human mind has evolved to perceive things around us; it must appear to you that our bodies were designed. I mean look at them – they look pretty good huh? Two legs, two arms, two (not three) eyes. The truth is - they weren’t. I wonder, what if we did have three eyes? I bet if we had three eyes it would appear that, three eyes were as right-as-rain and hence three eyes would be part of the design huh? Again, this is just how the human mind has evolved ... to scratch for food, hunt, look for a suitable mate, to look at itself and see purpose and design, et cetera. Yes, it must appear as if we were designed. Take a read of The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design and see what you think.

Originally posted by Mucker
…Plus if we are the result of Evolution then there would surely not be a conscience, something that has pretty much been proven on these threads. The result of a conscience alone surely show there is not more to us than meets the eye ...

Many people have many theories on consciousness and evolution. I personally find the idea’s fascinating but do not have so much time to go into the field deeply (my field is neuroscience, hence the interest – however my focus is on stem cells and developmental neurobiochemistry.) Anyway, in science, idea’s are brought forth, some stand, some crumble. That’s the fun in it. In religion you will find an answer. Weather it’s correct or not may or may not matter for you. But you will find a definite answer – some people need that to get by in life. Personally, I can live with the certainty that most things are not certain What I am trying to say is, I don’t feel I need to have THE ANSWER hence my interest in science. If you need THE ANSWER to make your life happy I can tell you now that you won’t find it in its entirety here. That’s the nature of study and endeavor. I’ve posted some books that you may find interesting on the subject. I haven’t had time to read them – they’re on the To Do list. Enjoy:

Evolution of Consciousness: The Origins of the Way We Think

Origins of the Modern Mind: Three Stages in the Evolution of Culture and Cognition

Originally posted by Mucker
…all the evidence to find God is here, around us.

Three eyes Mucker, three eyes . . . . . .

 

[MarcAC]

Re: Misconceptions

Originally posted by Raithere
... it is the mechanism of action itself.

What does "DNA" refer to in this context? I'd call this another 'alternative explanation' - not necessarily a misconception - but possibly so.

The process does not require intelligent input... only change over time.

... this seems to be another 'alternative explanation'/misconception. Many would consider the 'change over time' as a form of 'intelligent input'. All evidence is open to interpretation.

 

[sage]

did i seem defensive? sorry for the misconception. i will present the case for evolution in about 20 posts. so just be patient as i write them one by one.

 

[sage]

SELF ORGANISED LIFE

emergent self-organized complexity is a vital feature of all life processes. One may feel that the complete set of instructions to any life process is codified in genes. This is not true. The genes have instructions to build the constituents of the self-organized chemical reactions. The rest happens by itself. Proteins, composed of chains of amino-acids show higher order folding. Such foldings are crucial in many important biological reactions. But second order or third order folding in amino-acid chains are not codified in genes, they happen spontaneously and depend only upon the order in which the amino-acids are arranged in them. These foldings are sensitive to changes in chemical concentration and ph level of their environment and thus are able to provide different functions in different parts of the organism. An example is haemoglobin which assumes a structure capable of absorbing oxygen in less acidic environment(lungs) and switches on to a different structure in more acidic environment (in tissues).
The enzyme F-ATP synthetase is responsible for generating the ATP molecules. It is made up of a stalk and ahead aseembled from ten to twelve different proteins. So how is the information of such a complex assembly encoded? The answer is it isn’t. the enzyme self assembles once the constituent proteins are built- another example of self organization. Metabolism, which can be defined as a complex collection of proteins that cooperate to form the essential functional circuitry of all known living things, constitute an even higher level of emergent, self assembling structural complexity. An even higher dimension is added by the emergence of self-organised control loops which regulate metabolic path ways. The extent to which the copius structural information defining the structure and dynamics of metabolism shows how much information can be generated by self-organising geneless processea. Today the genetic information and the geneless self-organisation work hand in hand to produce life. But is it possible that in the beginning they were decoupled from each other? Could nongenetic self-organising systems had been complex and stable enough to hold out on their own until genes took over? Let us see what scientists have discovered.
The notion that the very first living things may have been constructed from collectively autocatalytic, self organizing chemical networks was first advanced by Rossler, Eigen and Khauffman in 1971. Khauffman used computer modeling to demonstrate how complex, collectively autocatalytic network might self-assemble in the absence of in the absence of information precursors. Computer simulations have also shown that these types of gene free metabolisms are dynamically stable, able to store and mutate information, to reproduce and repair themselves and to evolve. They also have homeostatic robustness that prevent chance perturbations from causing chaotic effects leading to the disintegration of the network. Thus the theory states that the first metabolisms crystallized out from a complex set of unconnected or partially connected molecules to form an interconnected set of collectively autocatalytic chemical reactions. This crystallization occurs as a sudden phase transition typical of a self-organising system as a critical level of connectivity and chemical diversity is transgressed.
The case for spontaneous self-assembly of complex, collectively autocatalytic metabolisms rest upon the notion that within the random library of chemicals of any sort, a fixed proportion of the components will, by chance, be able to catalyze chemical reactions which might occur between different members of the library. Suppose A and B react to produce products C and D. the products C and D catalyze the conversion of the reactants E and F into products G and H. G and H in turn catalyze the conversion of A and B to C and D thus completing the connection. Of course the number of chemical involved and the interconnections are expected to be more numerous and complicated than this but the basic idea is clear from this example. Computer simulations show that if the number of catalyzed reactions is roughly equivalent to the number of chemicals within the system(or greater) then such networks may spontaneously assemble. This result assumes that given a chemical reaction there is a finite probability of finding a catalyst to it within a random assortment of chemicals. This may not be true. However Khauffman has noted that as the length of a chemical polymer such as peptide, single stranded DNA or RNA increases the number of molecules that could be potentially synthesized increases more slowly than the number of chemical reactions in which each molecule might participate. This makes the emergence of collectively autocatalytic network almost inevitable, if the probability of finding compatible cross catalytic interactions within the given chemical system is sufficient enough.
In life today enzymes are prodigiously active catalysts. But enzymes are complex and it is unlikely that they formed the primeval components of autocatalytic networks. Recent studies have found that single stranded DNA, RNA and simple peptides composed of only a few amino acids show efficient catalytic activities . moreover these can be produced abiogenetically. Hence it is possible that the first autocatalytic networks were composed of single stranded DNA, RNA and simple peptides. It must be noted in this scenario polynucleotides first participated as active reagents only. It was only later that they evolved to exploit their inherent capability to store information thus beginning the gene based life we are familiar today.
Despite this the catalytic capabilities of polymers have their limits and at best collectively autocatalytic networks would be sparsely connected ( that is one reaction occurring within a set will be catalyzed only by 1,2 or three different chemical of that set and not more). Curiously it is these sparsely connected networks that show the type of homeostasis, robustness and evolvability necessary to maintain their core informational structure across time and allow it to be systematically and incrementally modified so that it is able to adjust to its surroundings. I shall end this reply by giving some preliminary evidence supporting the feasibility of the existence of closed crosscatalytic networks.

In 1996 David Lee and Reza Ghadiri demonstrated that a peptide of length 36 amino-acids can autocatalytically increase the rate of its own production from the ligation of two peptides of length 15 and 17 amino acids respectively. In 1997 they were able to demonstrate that two different autocatalytically self-replicating peptides could be cross catalytically linked in a mini network though a true collectively autocatalytic loop could not be formed. But Shao Yao and Joan Chimielski were able to generate a self-organising peptide network consisting of four autocatalytically self-replicating peptide ligation reactions showing good adaptive capabilities to pH and salt concentrations of the environment. These are preliminary empirical evidences affirming the feasibility of the abiogenesis of collectively autocatalytic networks. This branch of science is still in its infancy and many uncertainties remain. But going by initial findings one can be optimistic about its future.

 

[MarcAC]

Cut-And-Paste-Policy?

 

[TheVisitor]

Starting probably from simple inorganic compounds and proceeding to very simple organic structures and onwards.

The result is of course indistinguishable from an evolutionary process

==========================

Yes - The creation of Man was taken from the very simple to the more and more complex. Up until something could be a vessel to tabernacle, house, or be a representation of ....God.
The serpent was that which was formed just before Man, so close to Man it could reproduce with man and create a hybrid, not in the original creation.
Cain.
This explains the "missing link" and the mystery of the "false anointed ones" , the religious quaqmire of thousands of variations full of truth mixed with lies. Cain was very religious, and tried to worship God. So do His children today.
With the biggest churches, the finest choirs, the tallest stepples.
The richest most prominent members.
Just like Cain with his offering of flowers on the alter, all rejected by God.
God is in His Word, revealed to prophets.

 

[sage]

Sorry about that. The material is from a book called Life Without Genes by Adrian Woolfson. It was not cut and paste though. The book is an irritatingly rambling account of theories concerning early life replete with ‘excursions’ to gene space, rna space, chemistry space etc. etc. had to do a lot of work in getting important points together from different chapters. It was not easy. Some of the participants of the debate seemed to dismiss evolution for its apparent inability to explain the emergence of life. So thought it would help if I gave an account of the present theories and evidences concerning abiogenesis. No threads were given as I couldn’t find any and in my part of the world this book is neither accessible (except for biologists) nor do anyone expect others to read a book just because he tells them to. Do not know much about copyright laws, nor about the significance of using up free space in the web. I am new to both computer and the net. are you a mentor? anyway the facts are there proving that abiogenesis is not only possible but also probable. read the book if you wish. if you don't, i shall be happy to summarize its main points here.

 

[SVRP]

Michael wrote

quote:

Originally posted by SVRP
”As working biologists at the British Museum of Natural History we were astonished to read your editorial ’Darwin’s death in South Kensington’. How is it that a journal such as yours that is devoted to science and its practice can advocate that theory be presented as fact? This is the stuff of prejudice, not science, and as scientists our basic concern is to keep an open mind on the unknowable. Surely it should not be otherwise? You suggest that most of us would rather lose our right hands than begin a sentence with the phrase ‘If the theory of evolution is true…’ Are we to take it that evolution is a fact, proven to the limits of scientific rigor? If that is the inference then we must disagree most strongly. We have no absolute proof of the theory of evolution. What we do have is overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favor of it and as yet no better alternative. But the theory of evolution would be abandoned tomorrow if a better theory appeared.” (This letter was signed by twenty-two of the Museum’s staff of biologists and appeared in Nature magazine, Vol. 290, p. 82, March 12, 1981)

Below is the REAL ARTICAL EXACTLY as printed in the journal Nature

quote:
Originally quoted in The Journal Nature
Sir- Your leading article “Darwin’s Death in South Kensington” Nature 26 Febuary, p 735) illustrates “the rot at the museum” by quoting a passage from our 1978 Guide. How odd, for that passage was draft (by me) as a conscious paraphrase of the part of Chapter 13 in The Origins of Species in which Darwin discusses the relationship between his theory and systematic. “Groups-within-groups classification”, which you take to be a “popular euphemism for cladism” and its attendant heresies, is not hidden propaganda but a contraction of Darwin’s words – “the grand fact in natural history of the subordinate of group under group”.

The “weasel words” which so incense you are “If the theory of evolution is true.” I have tried replacing them by your own criterion of truth: “If the theory of evolution is not an open question among serious biologists, the features used to classify species in groups . . . were acquired by the common ancestor of the group.” It does not read well.

You readers may try substitution in the equivalent passage from Darwin: “On the view that the natural system is founded on descent with modification . . . the characters which naturalists consider as showing true affinity between any two or more species, are those which have been inherited from a common parent.” And your readers can answer for themselves you question “what purpose except general confusion can be served by these weasel words?” The reader may also be able to judge whether the rot is to be found here or in Little Essex Street.
Colin Patterson
British Museum (Natural History),
London SW7, UK

Did those look like the same quotes? NOT HARDLY! Do you now see how the ID Propaganda machine works? How they expect that you’ll act like a good little Christian and eat all the shit they shovel your way (which you did/do) in the hopes that they can invalidate your one true fear – that the whole thing is a farce.

YOU posted it SVRP not me. So either you’re a liar or you are being lied to. It’s that simple.

What a blunder you have made, Michael. And a major blunder on your credibility. I can only see you doing this if you are suffering from severe ‘tunnel vision’. You only see what you want to see. Peripheral vision doesn’t exist for you.
For instance, in your exuberance to discredit me, and trying to find a reference in my responses that was wrong, you narrowed your scope on the letter from Colin Patterson on the second column of Nature magazine, Vol. 290, p. 82, March 12, 1981. You reprinted the letter and proclaimed that was the true article and I was a liar. However if you had moved your vision to the top of the third column on the same page you would have found the letter I had referenced, which has the names of the twenty-two scientists in the departments of Botany, Entomology, Palaenontology, Public Services and Zoology, British Museum (Natural History) and above the title “Conversation sites”. It is the second letter after Colin Patterson’s letter under the same title “Darwin’s survival’. Since you don’t believe the reference I had written to be true, then let us propose a third individual who is reading these responses to do the research and locate the letter. Then we will know who is misleading whom and who is lying.
But this doesn’t address your narrow-mindedness, coupled with your ‘tunnel vision’, when dismissing all articles from other scientists just because they do not appear in your favorite ‘premiere’ journal. What a prejudicial and pompous point of view. You have pushed your presupposition and biasness on this forum when an opposing viewpoint or question is brought forward, legitimate viewpoints and questions that the Theory of Evolution must address. If the Theory of Evolution is true then it should stand on the evidence and not on other theories. And if scientists from different viewpoints question certain aspects of the evolutionary process, they should only be dismissed if their conclusions do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, not because their belief does not agree with your belief. The former is the scientific approach, the latter is prejudicial judgment.
Prof. Phillip Johnson states in his book 'Darwin on Trial': "…teachers and textbook writers should avoid terminology that implies that scientific judgements are a matter of subjective preference or vote-counting. Students should never be told that 'many scientists' think this or that. Science is not decided by vote, but by evidence. Nor should students be told that 'scientists believe.' Science is not a matter of belief; rather, it is a matter of evidence that can be subjected to tests of observation and objective reasoning.”
And in regards with any other theory, with respect to George Wald, if it does not begin with an assumption of its origin using either random chance or intelligent design, then it is a modern day ‘fairy tale’ for adults, because there is no third choice.

 

[James R]

<i>if it does not begin with an assumption of its origin using either random chance or intelligent design, then it is a modern day ‘fairy tale’ for adults, because there is no third choice.</i>

I've made the point before that certain chemicals will only combine in certain ways, as dictated by the laws of chemistry. This is not a random thing, nor need it be designed. There's your third choice.