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

reply to post by Barcs


The video is not scientific at all. Full of assumptions, stories and simple analogies, skips over some great difficulties etc... A story on how it may have happened is not scientific fact. It also makes the inccorect definition of irreducable complexity and then precedes destroy that eroneous claim. That's a strawman.

It also supports the flagellum with Ken millers TSIII case. Which has been refuted. The TSIII came later. So we have NO known evolutionary pathway. This was the main argument, and it has failed.

Lot's of subjects in there, I'd gladly give my 2c on each of those but that would be a long exercise. none of them are to do with origins.

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

A story on how it may have happened is not scientific fact.
So we have NO known evolutionary pathway.

To clarify, I have edited your post down to the key elements.

The first line is valid, bear in mind that it also encompasses everything you have been trying to assert.

The second line is why we conduct research and do not present speculation as proof that hypothesis taken from that research is "automagically" wrong because it doesn't allow for a creator.

Look to your own bias before dismissing out of hand.

reply to post by Noncompatible


No, the evidence is lacking. But the critics want to claim that the argument is over. How can it be over when the evidence doesn't exist? This is the shcizm that is being revealed here. On one hand they say it's refuted then admit to a lack of evidence.

No solution has been presented, only ideas. There is nothing wrong with this. It does not however translate to an idea resolving the very real challenge. lack of evidence is just that It's not evidence for or against anything. The idea about the TSIII was good but not complete, but alas it has fallen. And no solution exists, therefore the argument is still valid. That's the sum of it. And then there are another hundred or so examples to explain even theTSIII system itself! But somehow it has been refuted

How anyone can believe that physics and chemistry can create language is beyond me, How anyone can believe random chance can create unmatched nano technology is beyond me. And if my prediction is correct will we still be able to keep up this illusion in the face of a biological quantum computer?

it's a matter of faith isn't it? Admit it. How can it not be without answers?

Science will work it out perhaps, eventually, we'll have to get beyond this dogmatic rubbish though. The answers will not be in favour of the materialists this has run it's course.

Sometimes alternative splicing occurs. When this happens the intron is not just removed. Sometimes an exon is also removed or sometimes parts of introns are left in place to be transcribed into messenger RNA. This totally changes the code for the protein, meaning one segment of DNA may actually code for multiple proteins. This vastly increases the complexity of the genome, and brings up a question:

How does the genome decide when to perform alternative splicing and when to do "normal" splicing?

It's about branchpoints and splicing, Coding within the junk "non-coding" DNA helps the genome "decide" what parts to cut out and what parts to leave in before making the messenger RNA that code for proteins.

You won't get the full paper but this is the research.
www.nature.com...

This also proves that the information is not simply chemical, it operates like a computer program with sub functions. Otherwise the same segment should code the same each time.

It also shows more functionality for "Junk" DNA.

Guess which predictions are from who.

"Junk DNA is left over rubbish from the hit and miss evolutonary process."

"Junk DNA will be found to have a purpose."

reply to post by squiz
Quoted directly from evolutionnews.org or allaboutevolution.org I would assume.

Molecular interactions within a cell begin with the differential reproduction of sequences of nucleic acids. The laws of chemistry resolve the rest.

And nothing you have said that has been refuted, has actually been refuted.

“The amount of DNA in organisms,” Dawkins wrote in 1976, “is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the ‘purpose’ of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true ‘purpose’ of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger, hitching a ride in the survival machines created by the other DNA. “

Your hero was wrong. Refuted!

The discovery of the structure of DNA transformed biology profoundly, catalysing the sequencing of the human genome and engendering a new view of biology as an information science. Two features of DNA structure account for much of its remarkable impact on science: its digital nature and its complementarity, whereby one strand of the helix binds perfectly with its partner. DNA has two types of digital information — the genes that encode proteins, which are the molecular machines of life, and the gene regulatory networks that specify the behaviour of the genes.

www.nature.com...

Oh dear, looks like I am correct even in manstream convention. Are we to once again deny?

reply to post by squiz

No he hasn't. Yes its true some of the "Junk" DNA has been found to have a purpose in the transcription process, I doubt any evo scientist over the last 40 years would have thought otherwise, but much of our DNA can be deleted or manipulated without any consequence to the organism. Just one example:

Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice

reply to post by squiz
Here is the actual article, not just the abstract:

The Digital Code of DNA

It gives a brief historical survey on genetics and outlines a new mathematical approach to study gene regulatory networks. Nothing to get excited about, and banal conclusions for people not in the field of cell biology or genetic research. Certainly doesn't "refute" any scientific views currently held by the over-over-overwhelming majority.

Well at last some science.

Where they tested for fertillity or disease resistance? what we know about rendundant systems is that more often than not they serve as backup mechanisms. Without this sort of innovation random mutation would render us extinct fairly quickly.

Yes you can remove parts and still function, if you couldn't we would be in a lot of trouble Not everything can be irreducably complex. We use this in human designed systems as well. Just because basic functionality is not lost does not mean those parts removed are useless, granted yes they very well could be I can't deny that. But I can remove the doors on my car and it still works fine.

Minimal genome should be twice the size, study shows

“Previous attempts to work out the minimal genome have relied on deleting individual genes in order to infer which genes are essential for maintaining life,” said Professor Laurence Hurst from the Department of Biology and Biochemistry at the University of Bath.

“This knock out approach misses the fact that there are alternative genetic routes, or pathways, to the production of the same cellular product.

When you knock out one gene, the genome can compensate by using an alternative gene.

But when you repeat the knock out experiment by deleting the alternative, the genome can revert to the original gene instead.

Using the knock-out approach you could infer that both genes are expendable from the genome because there appears to be no deleterious effect in both experiments.”

www.bath.ac.uk...

So you see it's the sum of the parts working together, The plasticity of the gene can compensate very well and intelligently, It can be interpreted easily as a design implication. much like what Behe describes.

But yes your point is acknowledged there MAY be useless pieces, that can't be honestly be denied of course. Yet.
But without the options for alternative routes..... That wouldn't make good engineering sense.

Originally posted by uva3021
Certainly doesn't "refute" any scientific views currently held by the over-over-overwhelming majority.

edit on 28-6-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)

The intention was quite the opposite, it wasn't meant to refute anything that hasn't been established, I was saying this was standard and people were complaining. There were claims that DNA does not contain a code and nothing like a digital code at all. I think you were one of them. It does refute previous objections about infering information science.

Information scientists, really? You do realize that information science DOES NOT play a role in genetics & biology, right?

Outside of the field of genetics and microbiology, this shouldn't matter to anybody.

You know which one is yours. Not that it matters they both say the same thing. Bioinformatics anyone? Quantum biology?

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Barcs

 

The video is not scientific at all. Full of assumptions, stories and simple analogies, skips over some great difficulties etc... A story on how it may have happened is not scientific fact. It also makes the inccorect definition of irreducable complexity and then precedes destroy that eroneous claim. That's a strawman.

You should watch the second video. He addresses all of those arguments, specifically, one by one because people responded and brought those things up. I didn't say the video was scientific. I said it refutes IC, which is accurate. IC is not scientific. You don't know that flagellum is irreducibly complex. You are guessing. The fact is we don't know how exactly it developed. But you can't just ignore that the prior version could have had other functions that vanished at one stage of development or another. So to assume IC, is a fallacy and does nothing to refute evolution or abiogenesis. The claim people make of IC is that it's impossible for these features to emerge naturally,. Showing how it could form naturally refutes that, whether it's exactly what happened or not. It's not impossible, therefor claim refuted 100%. The only evidence you have for IC is, "I don't understand evolution or how it could have formed!". It's funny how people nitpick these little tiny things about evolution. So a designer designed flagellum, but let everything else evolve on its own? It's beyond silly.

It also supports the flagellum with Ken millers TSIII case. Which has been refuted. The TSIII came later. So we have NO known evolutionary pathway. This was the main argument, and it has failed.

You proved my point right here. We have no KNOWN evolutionary pathway. Science doesn't know, but they are trying to figure it out, just like with abiogenesis, evolution and everything else. Why attack science because they want to know the answer? "I don't know how it formed yet" doesn't equal intelligent design, that's an appeal to ignorance. Leave science alone and let it do its thing. Overall it's for the better of mankind. Focus on finding your designer.

reply to post by squiz
Still don't understand why you linked me to an abstract of a very insignificant paper with a unfortunately very deceptive title for people who only read abstracts. Or quoted a misguided interpretation of a Jack Szostak paper from an IDiot website of which Szostak himself would surely laugh at. Claiming in some way these support your ridiculous notion that scientists have uncovered great "proof of design" or truths about the inherent "information" properties of molecules is absurd.

reply to post by Barcs


I'm not attacking science at all, I'm all for it. We have good indication that the flagellum motor is IC through genetic knockout test, and no genes switched to preserve function, all 35 knockouts demonstrated a loss of mobility.
Proving that you can't have a functional motor until all the nescesary parts are there. Big surprise!

There may have, somehow? been a lineage for a step by step progression, who knows?

It may seem like we know a lot, but it's just drop in a huge ocean when it comes to these molecular machines.

It's got nothing to do with a misunderstanding of evolution because the experts don't know either.
We are not going to agree, that's fine. I've contributed to running this thread off course, I don't wish to do that and argue every argument of evolution ad nausium. I can see I've ruffled some feathers so I appolagize.

So I'm just posting this for illucidation and it's very cool too. Forget science for a moment what does your intuition tell you really? If it's random chance, that's fine with me.

Originally posted by squiz
I'm not attacking science at all, I'm all for it. We have good indication that the flagellum motor is IC through genetic knockout test, and no genes switched to preserve function, all 35 knockouts demonstrated a loss of mobility.
Proving that you can't have a functional motor until all the nescesary parts are there. Big surprise!

Taking away individual parts, is not the same thing as going back in evolutionary history. How do you know that it was originally used as a motor and that it didn't have other parts earlier? You don't, which is why i say it's nothing more than a guess. Similarly, I can remove your brain and you will no longer function. I could remove your heart, lungs, stomach or many other individual organs from your body and you won't function as a human. Does that mean you are irreducibly complex and therefor couldn't have evolved? Knockout test doesn't prove IC.

So I'm just posting this for illucidation and it's very cool too. Forget science for a moment what does your intuition tell you really? If it's random chance, that's fine with me.

evolution is not random chance, and I'm not sure why you're talking about ruffled feathers. I'm not angry, I'm simply correcting the countless errors and fallacies people are claiming as fact. I find that fun. If this made me angry I wouldn't bother even posting on here and would find other ways to spend my time.

reply to post by Barcs


Sigh... yes we both agree no one knows of the lineage.

Genetic knockout tests are a standard for determining functionality. It's perfectly acceptable as a test.

I disagree with your anology, each of the genes have a dedicated purpose it not the same as removing a brain. It doesn't fit the definition below. There is no function in half a motor. No functionality no natural selection. You'd have to demonstrate a pathway with functionality all the way. You can't do it. It's impossible. This goes for literally dozens of molecular machines and systems. There's known pathways for any of them.

Just so we are clear.

a single system composed of several well-matched interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the [core] parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning.

Once again we ignore empircal tests. Don't believe it, doesn't matter to me. I know it must be hard to swallow. IC is very real you've been spun a tale.

The hypothesis was constructed a test devised and prediction confirmed. Testimony from MicroBiologist Scott Minnich univerity of Idaho. "By all defintions it's irreducably complex" Tests trump stories every time.

So we have dual standards as far as evidence goes I see, empirical tests! oh that's not good enough, how about this just so story!

reply to post by squiz


Nobody's saying that if you break the flagellum down into separate parts, it will still function as a flagellum. That notion is ludicrous and it applies to every single living organism. Break the lung down and it will no longer function as a lung. Break the finger down and it won't function as a finger. There is no function in a half lung. It's a stupid comparison that has nothing to do with evolution, and more to do with technology and modern machines. You can rip anything apart and it won't function like it used to. But that's not how evolution works. Functions are added and subtracted. It is NOT impossible. And saying so is you being in denial, not me. You should never use absolute terms like "never" and "impossible" when trying to describing what science doesn't yet understand. I could just as easily argue that a designer is impossible, or that interstellar travel is impossible. It would just be a guess, however, just like you are guessing about IC. I just wonder what arguments you will use 10 years from now after all that stuff has been figured out.

You have 2 choices.

1. IC is true (ie by definition), but it's a logical fallacy when used against evolution, because it has absolutely nothing to do with it and more to do with individual functionality in a system.

2. IC is false and just an appeal to ignorance and still has nothing to do with evolution.

Either way it doesn't disprove evolution or even come close.

Yes people are saying that you can take a great many parts and still function, that's exactly what ken miller attempts to do in his debunking videos. And none of your examples involving organs and body parts apply at all. It's embarrasingly stupid. They do not fit the definition. They are not irreducably complex singular systems so by definition It's another strawman fallacy.

So Ken Miller has spent all these years attempting to refute the concept and he could have just said but you can cut the head of an organism and it won't function? It's ludicrous beyond reason. No, he acknowledged that it is a challenge, otherwise he wouldn't have put so much energy into it, and to his credit attempted a scientific rebuttal and has spent years doing it. He has never said anything as rediculous as what you are saying, he couldn't and still maintain credibility.

And it's not what the microbiologist says, your misunderstanding of the concept is not falsification. And just another story. If the argument was as simple as that. Then why did Ken Miller not just apply that reasoning? Instead of the other arguments proposed, they were valid, but since proven wrong.

Do you honestly believe it's that simple? Do you think The scientists didn't think of this retarded logic? Well probably not because it's not even applicable. Your understanding is based on years of lies and propaganda. Personally I don't care live in your dillusion.

It's also reductio ad absurdum two logical fallicies in one.

reply to post by squiz

Not many can frame their views on IC in a way that you can, because it doesn't make any sense, you don't even know what you are saying (Does an "information science" approach to researching sound waves imply there is something inherent in the vibration of electrons that suggest a designer?). Thus "retarded" logic is called for to address your claims, questions, whatever they are, nobody knows what they are.

Got any more abstracts or quotes from "evolutionnews.org" you're willing to share?

I'd also ask, since science matters. not blogs, not opinions, and definately not just so stories.

Would you be so kind as to provide a bibliography listing all the peer reviewed scientific research studies that provide the detailed, testable (and potentially falsifiable) biological models for any of the IC systems that Mike Behe described in his book Darwin’s Black Box. its been about 16 years since Behe first made the claim that no such research existed and 16 years later, that’s still the case!