It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

abioGenesis hypothesis: scientific or just a silly idea? What say you?

page: 20
14
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Actually that's not true.

One lone judge dictates science now is that how it works?

You can read the transcriptions from the court case, A microbiologist testified that genetic knockout tests show the flagellum to be by defintition to be irriducably complex.

Do you want to see it?

The judge ignored experimental evidence in favour of ken millers "story" how the TSIII system was a predecessor.

There's many problems with this.

1) it' since been proven not true! it's not a predecessor.
2) it's a subsystem that has nothing to do with the mobility system.
3) even if it were, it's one tiny step in what must contain many many steps. No need because of the above.

This is another lie, the DNA, RNA, Protein problem IS a irriducably complex arrangement! that's why it's called a chicken and egg problem. There a hundreds of these types of things. From molecular, to the systems of the human body to the eco system itself.

It's not been refuted in any scientific way at all. In fact many don't seem too really get the argument to well. Surgeons generally do.
edit on 26-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


It's been refuted in about a hundred papers and a ton of books.

The protein problem has been shown conclusively to not be a problem at all. Proteins, which Behe insists are irreducibly complex, have been proven to evolve. Evolutionary biologists have tested Behe's assertions and proven that, well, he's wrong.




posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by HappyBunny
 


Please provide your evidence. If it exists. The TSIII has been shown not to be a predecessor.
There are no empirical tests proving the evolutionary pathway to the flagellum. It's all stories. The hundred papers and others are nothing but conjecture without empirical evidence. Ken Miller, Matzke etc... 99% will make the TSIII argument which has been falsified. The rest will just misinterperate the argument and claim the co-option argument which is not the crux of the issue at all.

Knock out tests have confirmed it. Where's your experimental proof? it doesn't exist does it?

Please provide proof how the protein problem is not a problem. The information needed to make proteins is stored in DNA molecules. You can't make new proteins without DNA, and you can't make new DNA without proteins. So which came first, proteins or DNA? it's a well known riddle. Was there a noble prize involved? there should have been.
It's unresolved. Are darwinists science deniers?

No one has evolved a functional protein in a lab via random mutation. Stories are not science. This argument does not belong to Behe, I think you are not really sure which arguments you are trying to debunk.


And no, darwinain evolution is incapable of producing even a single protein according to experiment. Any experiments to say otherwise? No.

Where are these irrifutable experiments? Where are these tests?
edit on 27-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 
Anomalies in the flagellum are found through genetic variation just like any other trait, and the evolution of the flagella has been laid out quite clearly. Its still a heavily researched area, and there are competing ideas, but such ideas are only a concern for microbiologist, the basic framework is agreed upon. There is nothing to suggest irreducible complexity. For that to exist the proteins would have no other functions except for its being a component of the flagellum. And if someone discovered this they would win a noble prize, but nobody will discover this, since you can't discover fiction.

edit on 27-6-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
reply to post by squiz
 
There is nothing to suggest irreducible complexity. For that to exist the proteins would have no other functions except for its being a component of the flagellum.


That is not the definition of irreducable complexity. That is the strawman constructed by the critics. Critics should get the argument correct if they want to critisize it. You fail to even understand the concept. This may help.

www.evolutionnews.org...

www.evolutionnews.org...

Once again we see darwinist claim it's all resloved, biologists know for a fact little is known about the flagellums origins or any molecular machine for that matter. Are darwinists science deniers?

TSIII came later, the argument has been refuted.


"One fact in favour of the flagellum-first view is that bacteria would have needed propulsion before they needed T3SSs, which are used to attack cells that evolved later than bacteria. Also, flagella are found in a more diverse range of bacterial species than T3SSs. ‘The most parsimonious explanation is that the T3SS arose later," Howard Ochman - Biochemist - New Scientist (Feb 16, 2008)

Phylogenetic Analyses of the Constituents of Type III Protein Secretion Systems
Excerpt: We suggest that the flagellar apparatus was the evolutionary precursor of Type III protein secretion systems.


The all in agreement thing must have turned out that they were all wrong.


you also confuse the protein issue with the flagellum, it's a separate argument that relates to the origin of life and the first cell.

No empirical tests to prove otherwise then? Just more story telling.
edit on 27-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 
Your links to evolutionnews.org can only strengthen your argument.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


And ad homs, lack of evidence and false critiques strengthen yours?

Yet ironicaly you claim to understand what it means, but won't listen to how the people constructing argument have defined it!. Well there you have it folks!
edit on 27-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Barcs
How can you claim that genetic information is not physical? What is DNA made out of? All physical components, even the "code" itself is pairs of physical atoms. People keep trying to apply information theory to DNA, when it's not a computer code and doesn't even remotely resemble one.


There are different types of information, it's a science onto itself. The "people" that keep trying to apply it are information scientists. Stanley Krick has commented on this, Jack Szostak has commented. It's a fact not an idea.

Watch the video above, and listen to the terminology they use "This is where the genetic information becomes flesh and blood". What was it before? it was encoded. Prescriptive information is encoded into matter it is not the matter itself.


Information scientists, really? You do realize that information science DOES NOT play a role in genetics & biology, right? It's about the studying and gathering of data. That is like a network technician commenting on nuclear fusion. It's not the same thing. Information can be gathered from ANYTHING. Count the rings of Saturn and the width of each one. That is information, but it doesn't mean that the rings were intelligently designed, simply because the information describes the rings. Again, the information is not written or encoded, it was already there. The cells REPLICATE IT, they do not ENCODE it like a computer language. I don't care what terminology people use to dumb down a concept for the general public. It is NOT computer code. It is NOT a computer language. It is not close to either one, not to mention "prescriptive information can only come from intelligence" is a complete guess. The information is 100% physical in DNA, although the information about Saturn's rings is non physical because we assigned the information to interpret the data to OUR understanding of measurement.

Flagellum and irreducible complexity is the oldest fallacy in the book. You are claiming that because science doesn't know how exactly it evolved (when they have a pretty good idea), that it's somehow impossible to arise naturally. Seems similar to your misunderstandings about whale evolution. I'm not trying to attack you but faulty information needs to be corrected.


Once again we see darwinist claim it's all resloved, biologists know for a fact little is known about the flagellums origins or any molecular machine for that matter. Are darwinists science deniers?

Nobody said it's all resolved, just that scientists have a good idea of how its possible. You are the only one claiming that it's been resolved, saying that it's too complex to have arisen naturally, end of story. That's simply wrong. Even if scientists knew absolutely zero about how it developed, it still wouldn't mean ID is right. It would mean there is more research to be done before making a conclusion about it. Attacking science will get you nowhere. Instead of attacking, run your own experiments and try to learn the answer for yourself.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

Your evidence comes from Behe or crazy creationist websites, please do better, you are embarrassing yourself.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


I'd be embarased about completely stuffing up the argument in the first place If I were you. More ad homs what a surprise


Genetic knock out tests have been done, you know, real experiments.


Behe has proffered the concept of irreducible complexity using the flagellum as a paradigmatic example. It is this very concept that has been the bread and butter of molecular geneticists allowing them to identify genes in any given system by loss of function. Behe argues that natural selection and random mutation cannot produce the irreducibly complex bacterial flagellar motor with its ca. forty separate protein parts, since the motor confers no functional advantage on the cell unless all the parts are present. Natural select can preserve the motor once it has been assembled, but it cannot detect anything to preserve until the motor has been assembled and performs a function. If there is no function, there is nothing to select. Given that the flagellum requires ca. 50 genes to function, how did these arise? Contrary to popular belief, we have no detailed account for the evolution of any molecular machine.


Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 


Actually DNA’s definition as a literal code is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s.

The bottom line is you don't have the empirical evidence for very much at all do we? The fact is you need experimental data to back an hypothesis. That's the scientific method.


"One mutation, one part knock out, it can't swim. Put that single gene back in we restore motility. Same thing over here. We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect." (Scott Minnich Testimony, Day 20, pm session, pg. 107-108.)


Genetic knockout tests confirm it. Are darwinists science deniers?

Prescriptive information is another test and it's been confirmed.
Much of your complaint is everything that is wrong with biology, even darwinist acknowledge we must look at biology in the context of information, it's been regarded as the next step.

By all means correct faulty information, except you have to provide proof you see. That's where you seem to be a little defficient. Just so stories are no good. Oh it's an old debunked argument! Where's the test?


Natural select can preserve the motor once it has been assembled, but it cannot detect anything to preserve until the motor has been assembled and performs a function. If there is no function, there is nothing to select. Given that the flagellum requires ca. 50 genes to function, how did these arise?


What's the solution? When was this solution solved? Does it involve experiments? Take a look at the thing, it's a marvel, it's been called the most efficient machine in the universe.

1. Dna contains prescriptive information. Scientific fact!
2. The only known cause for Prescriptive information is mind. Statement of fact!
3. Dna was encrypted by a mind. Logical hypothesis.

It's so boring just getting the same old outdated complaints I can read anywhere on the internet. You guys always prop science up to such a high standard but when it gets down to it, you haven't much to show at all.
edit on 27-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs
 


Actually DNA’s definition as a literal code is nearly universal in the entire body of biological literature since the 1960′s.

The bottom line is you don't have the empirical evidence for very much at all do we? The fact is you need experimental data to back an hypothesis. That's the scientific method.

Which hypothesis are you asking me to back up? Where is your evidence? Can you please post the peer reviewed science experiment abstracts that you are talking about. Thus far, your best evidence is from an intelligent design site that screams bias.

It doesn't matter that DNA is considered a code. I clearly explained the difference in the last post. It is NOT a computer program, nor is it arranged anything close to it. It's simply pairs of repeating atoms.


Prescriptive information is another test and it's been confirmed.

"prescriptive information can only come from intelligence" has NEVER been tested nor confirmed. It is a guess and it's really just poor interpretation of various words and concepts that are unrelated.


Much of your complaint is everything that is wrong with biology, even darwinist acknowledge we must look at biology in the context of information, it's been regarded as the next step.

Regarded as the next step by who?


By all means correct faulty information, except you have to provide proof you see. That's where you seem to be a little defficient. Just so stories are no good. Oh it's an old debunked argument! Where's the test?

What did I say in my previous post that needs backing up? If I don't source something its because I consider it common knowledge. If there's something that isn't true or isn't based on fact, please let me know.


1. Dna contains prescriptive information. Scientific fact!
2. The only known cause for Prescriptive information is mind. Statement of fact!
3. Dna was encrypted by a mind. Logical hypothesis.


Statement #1 is the only one that holds any weight. #2 isn't a scientific statement and thus #3 is a fallacy because absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence, at least not in science. You say the only KNOWN cause. That may be accurate, but it doesn't mean there aren't causes that we do not know or that it couldn't arise naturally. You are assuming that the only thing that can cause that type of information is intelligence, but that's no different in saying that since we have not proven abiogenesis yet, that it's impossible.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Shannon's classical information theory does not consider the meaning, or function, of a message. Algorithmic complexity fails to account for the observation that "different molecular structures may be functionally equivalent." For this reason, Szostak suggested that a new measure of information -- functional information -- is required.

(Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, "Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007)


Szostak is the leading man for the RNA hypothesis, of course he is aware of the information problem. You however are in denial.

Yes number 2 is a statement of fact not science, you admitted it. Now it's up to science to provide another method, I won't expect it will be soon.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Behe is full of it, as nicely summed up here.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

What do you think that quote says? All it does is point out the fact that with any biological system, information can not be generalized to have an upper bound for a specific function F, or O(F) does not generalize complexity for biological organisms. This is because all organisms are different and contain a different sequence of nucleic acids at any given locus. Outside of the field of genetics and microbiology, this shouldn't matter to anybody.

How one can make the jump from "functional information" to "the theory of evolution has been debunked and intelligent design must be the answer", I don't know. At least you quoted a peer-reviewed paper, though it has nothing to do with whatever it is you are arguing.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
I know exactly what it means, it means a specific type of information is required, one that does not arise through natural causes, Plain and simple.

Functional information is the heart of the issue, There's no known way to produce it. face the facts. If there is you should show me.

Much easier to deny it exists.
Tell Szostak not to worry about that part, it doesn't matter!

I think you don't fully grasp the situation, that's the only conclusion as to the denial as far as I can tell.

No way did I say this was falsification I said it was a key problem with the origin of life. The people in the field agree.

Let see, more adhoms, another starwman and more denial. How original.
.
BTW The criteria for falsification as set by Darwin himself has been met several times. But that's a different subject.
edit on 27-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 08:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
What do you think that quote says? All it does is point out the fact that with any biological system, information can not be generalized to have an upper bound for a specific function F, or O(F) does not generalize complexity for biological organisms.


Absolute rubbish, what do you think the word "new" means. You can't have half functionality for the origin of the first cell! it is about a specific type of information, specified information. It quite clearly highlights the difference between shannon information and the type that is "required". A type that physics and chemistry has not been known to produce! These are facts I'm afraid.

Do we also deny that DNA "codes" for proteins? yes that's what you are saying. This requires functional specified information and not shannon information.

I said it when I first posted in this thread, The burden of proof is on the materialists to prove functional information can arise by natural forces, otherwise it's just an opinion or belief. Isn't it?

So far all we have is opinions, beliefs and a lot whining.

edit on 27-6-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by squiz
 


Behe is full of it, as nicely summed up here.


That is a very excellent video. Very thorough and describes the many flaws associated with the IC argument. Loss of function pretty much puts it to bed. The beginning part with the eye was great as well. IC is glorified god of the gaps. Claiming something is impossible to happen simply because science doesn't fully know is absurd. Evolution doesn't just add, it subtracts, and IC doesn't account for that.
edit on 27-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

I'm going to make a rather grand assumption and suggest you haven't actually read a paper by Jack Szostak. He's probably on Youtube, perhaps he has made some videos for the layperson.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by uva3021
 


I've read a couple, problem is RNA hypothesis is in trouble if we are to accept the other tenants of evolutionary theory.
It seems proteins had to be there in the beggining. So back to the drawing board.



posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by uva3021
 


I've read a couple, problem is RNA hypothesis is in trouble if we are to accept the other tenants of evolutionary theory.
It seems proteins had to be there in the beggining. So back to the drawing board.


Please clarify which hypothesis you are referencing as being "in trouble".

That is the problem with science you see, until we "know" multiple avenues are explored.

Comes down to "Don't know, let's find out."



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join