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: 25
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


There is no encoding or decoding in sunlight. The differences between these types of information, Shannon and prescriptive information are clearly defined in science. Your argument is with the science outlined for decades.

There are countless examples of biological communication. We are talking about the basis of biology. It's circular.

I believe in evolution, so using it against me won't work. Its proposed mechanism, outdated by some 30 years is not up to the task. But that is a different topic.

My argumentative fallacy as you call it is simply a fact.




posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


No, your argumentative fallacy is an opinion, something very different from a fact. There are numerous opinions on the origins of life and none , barring yours, require a guiding intelligence.

You are arguing with puddle thinking, albeit couched in grandiose pseudo scientific terminology. It is however puddle thinking all the same.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by uva3021
 


DNA repair mechanisms evolve is an assumption. There is a limit to the amount of random mutation that can happen because the deleterious mutations far out way any beneficial ones, they accumulate too fast for natural selection to pick them off.
This is pulled straight out of thin air. Natural selection can only operate under an environment of low mutation rates? It operates if there is molecular variation and heredity, mutation rate has nothing to do with whether or not natural selection work.

There are a dozens models explaining how a cycle of auto-catalytic molecules can link together to form units of selection. And random chance is not impossible, that's also an absurd statement, it contradicts itself, and again just pulled out of thin air. Molecular interactions were happening simultaneously for over a billion years, involving organic molecules and those that can catalyze their own synthesis (Water, for example, can catalyze its own synthesis). It only had to happen once for a molecule to form that can act as a unit of selection, and it probably happened millions of times. But its impossible? And I suppose some sort of crazy, made up divine intervention garbage isn't? Forgive the same old tired, though forever relevant phrase, who created the creator? Who endowed the creator's DNA with 'prescriptive information,' and who endowed the creator's creator's molecules with 'prescriptive information,'...

We can explain how the world works without having to resort to magic.
edit on 7-7-2012 by uva3021 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I believe in evolution, so using it against me won't work. Its proposed mechanism, outdated by some 30 years is not up to the task. But that is a different topic.
Evolution's 'proposed mechanism' is the differential reproduction of sequences of nucleotides. Its not 'outdated by some 30 years,' its how life works.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 03:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by squiz
 


No, your argumentative fallacy is an opinion, something very different from a fact. There are numerous opinions on the origins of life and none , barring yours, require a guiding intelligence.


And all have failed.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by uva3021
This is pulled straight out of thin air. Natural selection can only operate under an environment of low mutation rates?


www.sciencedaily.com...



And random chance is not impossible, that's also an absurd statement, it contradicts itself, and again just pulled out of thin air. Molecular interactions were happening simultaneously for over a billion years, involving organic molecules and those that can catalyze their own synthesis


The chance of random stringing one single protein is easily estimated. The use of terminology as to whether something is impossible or not is one that is used to describe a certain probability in mathematics.

This is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200 and is approximately equal to 10^260, that is, a one followed by 260 zeros!”

From Crick, a devout darwinist.


There are a dozens models explaining how a cycle of auto-catalytic molecules can link together to form units of selection.


And here enters the RNA hypothesis, which requires a pre RNA world, and still worlds away from protein synthesis. Any selection will be based on the sole function of replication. It's Surrounded by massive gaps on both sides. Ribosome evolution is saying something completely different to the RNA world. There is no unified theory.

The oldest life is appox 3.8 billion years Luca would have been older, You don't have billions of years. It's been estimated 400 million tops, and pre cellular life may have had to appear instantly. Your description is but a story, no one knows exactly, but you present your story as it were factual.
edit on 7-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 





My argumentative fallacy as you call it is simply a fact.


No, your argumentative fallacy is just that...an ARGUMENTATIVE FALLACY.

Those aren't facts ever, just like unicorns aren't spaghetti



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Noncompatible
reply to post by squiz
 


No, your argumentative fallacy is an opinion, something very different from a fact. There are numerous opinions on the origins of life and none , barring yours, require a guiding intelligence.


And all have failed.


We don't know how first life started, so you can't claim they have all failed



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:34 AM
link   

reply to post by squiz
Once again, you link to an article and only read the title or a summary. This is verbatim from the article:


The Shakhnovich speed limit also offers an explanation for observed differences in genome sizes between organisms with genome error correction -- such as bacteria, mammals, birds, and reptiles -- and those without, such as RNA viruses: In more complex organisms, cells have evolved correction systems to detect and fix errors in DNA replication. These systems drastically reduce the number of mutations per replication, increasing the mutational stability of the genome and allowing more intricate and delicate biological systems to develop without the risk of interruptive mutations.


In other words, evolution by natural selection. What was actually going through your mind when you saw this article. Even the title, "Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction," hints nothing at rendering natural selection impossible, and explicitly says the opposite. Please learn to read,


Originally posted by squiz

The chance of random stringing one single protein is easily estimated. The use of terminology as to whether something is impossible or not is one that is used to describe a certain probability in mathematics.
Once again, pulled out of thin air, and absurd on so many levels. This sounds like words from a highly untrained and uneducated intelligent design wacko. Feel free to send me a link from 'teachthecontroversy.org"

The odds of drawing a 5 of clubs from a deck of 52 cards is 1/52, the odds of drawing any card, after billions and billions of chances from billions and billions of simultaneous decks, is 1. Your sequential probability calculations of any given protein are meaningless

Francis Crick is one scientist. I would like to get a source for your information on his misguided notions of probability.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   
I'd love to play poker against anyone applying "creationist probability calculations"



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
It's the usual. Science doesn't yet know, therefor its impossible. DNA had to have been created in its current form 3.8 billion years ago. There's no chance it could have changed slowly over time, just like everything else on earth. I wonder when he's going to realize how ridiculously poor the logic is. I'm not going to bother arguing anymore. If counterpoints are not offered, the debate will go nowhere and lead to constant repetition, and that is simply not productive.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   
The idea that dangerous and deleterious mutations accumulate faster is not a subject of controversey, The corrective program is the saving grace otherwise extinction is certain. Exactly my point.

This goes back to my original question, how long will the fragile molecule survive until the right combination of amino acids (all with pure chirality) and the right functional proteins emerge by chance to fix the issue? And RNA is incredibly fragile as a starting point.

The odds of randomly generating one protien or randomly mutating one similiar protein to another have been experimentally confirmed. It's well beyond any conceivable timelines. See Doug Axe bio-complexity.

Proteins do not take to random mutation very well, a single mistake can lead to death or disease you would be lucky to have one that does nothing.

Yes things evolve, the word is a broad term. Yet you need to stumble upon chains of 100 and even thousands of amino acids to create one functional protein, and then you need hundreds of these proteins, some working together for the same function. The numbers are in the order of trillions of trillions of trillions of trillions etc....

You need functions for natural selection to select. Natural selection is not a creative process, it simply reduces the genetic variety to what is well adapted.

We are clutching at straws now. I'll only bother with valid points. Not childish silliness.

Notice how the ones who stand behind thier version of scientific reason to support thier cause, quickly begin to ignore it when it doesn't fit there world view. Read the claims that have fallen since this exchange has taken place and you'll see what I mean.
edit on 7-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

We are clutching at straws now. I'll only bother with valid points. Not childish silliness.

Notice how the ones who stand behind thier version of scientific reason to support thier cause, quickly begin to ignore it when it doesn't fit there world view. Read the claims that have fallen since this exchange has taken place and you'll see what I mean.
edit on 7-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


I'll drop in one last time just to point out that because you decided that you are the arbiter of what is valid and what is not, does not make it so.
You will continue to make unsupportable claims and dismiss anything that falls outside their auspices as invalid or just plain wrong.
Prove your statements conclusively or get off the pot. You are the ONLY one claiming to have the correct answer......."fer sure".
Truth be told, you don't, nor do I, nor does anyone else. But as I shall state one last time in a slightly different format....

When you make it a search for god not simply the answer you will twist any and all evidence to point to your predetermined, desired result.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 
Doug Axe. I'm going to go out on a limb and say he is an intelligent design supporter. You read abstracts of his blog posts too?

Space is a continuous medium, the probability your hand is consuming any subset of points in space is 1/infinity. This has been experimentally confirmed because I can read abstracts from esoteric and wacky former scientists.



posted on Jul, 7 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
See, we resort back to the same tired and transparent tactics. Insults and adhom attacks.
Big surprise. This thread has been a delight in exposing the rampant scientism on this forum.

Fundamentalist matelialism as religion.

Debate is not allowed, when it does happen it doesn't take long until it reverts to mindless childish defenses as this thread has clearly demonstrated. Good job! thanks for the confirmation guys.
edit on 8-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Noncompatible

I'll drop in one last time just to point out that because you decided that you are the arbiter of what is valid and what is not, does not make it so.


Then show your supported evidence of why it is not so. Don't be shy. All you have provided is a criticism with semantics. I'm letting scientific evidence be the arbiter.

Like I said I'm not going to agrue facts such as the code like nature of DNA or the validity of Information science and bioinformatics. These things are grounded solidly in the scientific literature. Anyone can confirm these easily.

These were denied by our regular so called defenders of science.

This is not worth my time, obviously the atheists have nothing substantial to offer except "we don't know", denial and personal attacks. That's pretty much the sum of it.
edit on 8-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Yeah...but there's ZERO evidence for any intelligence behind it


You entire argument is a fallacy...and a common one too. And the funny thing is, you simply ignore that pretending you are correct



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

Originally posted by Noncompatible

I'll drop in one last time just to point out that because you decided that you are the arbiter of what is valid and what is not, does not make it so.


Then show your supported evidence of why it is not so. Don't be shy. All you have provided is a criticism with semantics. I'm letting scientific evidence be the arbiter.

Like I said I'm not going to agrue facts such as the code like nature of DNA or the validity of Information science and bioinformatics. These things are grounded solidly in the scientific literature. Anyone can confirm these easily.

These were denied by our regular so called defenders of science.

This is not worth my time, obviously the atheists have nothing substantial to offer except "we don't know", denial and personal attacks. That's pretty much the sum of it.
edit on 8-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)


Ok, I'll make a liar of myself and respond.

1. I have offered the reasoning that you have a desired answer and it is coloring your interpretation of data.
2. Defending my position, which is simply: "let's find out", is not required, I am not the one asserting an intelligence "behind the curtain"
3. I do not question the data, just (once again) your assertion that there MUST be a guiding intelligence, where none is required or (truthfully) indicated.
4. You realize that "we don't know" is the most honest answer there is, surely ?
5. Personal attacks ? Hardly, a request for proof is not an attack when a definitive statement is made in the fashion you have.

Incidentally, semantics ? I think you'll find I have been frank and candid with no attempt to deceive or mislead. I do not need to play word games, I have nothing to prove.



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Physics an chemistry are incapable of organizing a language.

Intelligence is the ONLY cause.

It's that simple really. You say I have a "desired answer". Equally it can be said that you refuse to ackowlwdge the facts, in fact it is definately the case. It's right there in your face and you can't deal with it. The only thing we have is to expect some unknown laws of physics and chemistry. You have a "desire" to find a soluton beyond the known laws of physics. So let me ask, where is your example? It doesn't exist.

It's now up to the critics to prove that physics and chemistry can create symbolic meaning beyond the physical. This won't happen because it cannot happen. It definately hasn't happened here.

The Atheists here have failed the challenge. They pick on anything to avoid the challenge, that pattern is clearly evident in this thread. As well as word games. You know what I'm talking about.

No personal attacks or insults! Which thread have you been reading? All they can do is what has been demonstrated here, not much but whine and switch subjects. Just wait, more whining to come. I assure it will not contain an answer in any form.
edit on 8-7-2012 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 



Noncompatible you say --



..."we don't know" is the most honest answer there is, surely ?


It's more like "WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW is the most honest answer there is" for atheist n such - alike, cuz evidence of intelligence is staring you in the eye.

imagine that - DNA CODE is INTELLIGENCE!

tc



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join