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.

 

Intelligent first cause: why it must exist

page: 31
18
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 

I actually purchased Meyer's book on the basis of this thread, and also listened to his lectures.

I haven't got all the way through yet, but I'm concerned so far that his argument is basically the watch maker debate repackaged about DNA. Initially I was quite swayed by some of his passionate points, but the more I broke it down I'm feeling less convinced.

Meyer talks about how Darwin's theory was originally questioned since it didn't predict anything, and then urges readers / listeners to agree that if Darwin's theory was accepted on this basis then we must also accept the intelligent design argument. I found this quite agreeable to begin with, but from the example of a theory being under scrutiny it simply doesn't follow that ...

Darwin's theory was under scrutiny. Intelligent design is under scrutiny. Therefore both are equally valid theories.

The scrutiny leveled at intelligent design, in my mind, is that the evidence for it isn't advancing anywhere but explaining a possible unprovable cause.

Evolution (I hate the term Darwinism frankly) has been witnessed, as Meyer admits, and it is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that evolution could happen on a wider scale. Evolution appears to be a straw man here though, because even if evolution or aliens were proven to be the main cause of life with no divine intelligence, we would still be arguing about the big bang creating both.

Undoubtedly there was more to the origin of things that evolution. Clearly we do not know everything about our origins, but that's nothing new. Evolution is, however, an applicable theory with purpose and utility. Intelligent design is a possible cause for which our scientific evidence appears to be lacking.

The argument from probability, perhaps I will be corrected (hopefully politely) .... Meyer urges me to accept that if something looks created then it was created. The giants causeway wasn't created by intelligence:


It looks created. Is natural I believe.

Just because the universe is improbable it doesn't follow that an intelligent cause existed.

Any given set of significant consecutive events can be presented as improbable.

The argument that other intelligent life exists is made from the concept that there must be billions of possible solar systems and therefore many parts of the universe that could produce life. We could argue that humanity existing is proof of a creator on the grounds that life appears to be unlikely in the universe, and we exist. We could also argue, however, that the scarcity of life is proof of a lack of creator or an amateur (not Godlike) creator. We could also appeal to the many design flaws in our evolution to make these arguments, too.

Any given result can seem 'special' when presented as maths. Drawing any combination of seven playing cards has the same statistical chance of drawing any other combination of seven playing cards ... the hand we're holding just seems special because we think we're a pair of aces. It just seems there is a probability paradox in that we don't know if the universe had dozens of false starts or not, or if it was procedural destiny. The lack of other examples in the universe doesn't help either.

At the end of the day, I feel like Meyer is descending into a philosophical argument for the possibility of a scientific theory. Meyer is better read, perhaps more intelligent than me, and it has been amusing to see Meyer using common arguments against God's existence as reasons why science can't answer all our questions.

This is my big question though, and it's just two words: What then?

If we accept that intelligent design is a plausible theory, what is Meyer's call to action?

This is where I don't understand. There is no mathematical principal of God, we cannot insert God into an algorithm, we (seemingly?) cannot produce a new line of logical research and knowledge from God as a cause because the person is, by definition, outside of our natural laws.

This is the point I imagine where Meyer would say ... well I'm not arguing for God. I feel this is false, but perhaps anti-theist scientist can be guilty of the same error of argument except they generally don't publish a scientific physics paper (physics not popular book) specifically to debunk God, whilst Meyer (I fear) is specifically (attempting to) publish to build a case for God.

No one is stopping him from having his ideas, researching them, or philosophically arguing them really. At best, without a better smoking gun, I could see ID being on the same respect level as string theory without the maths, and even less than S.E.T.I.

Put simply, ID as an origin of life explanation will always sit at the top of the tree throwing rocks even if it isn't true. That's precisely why it needs to require a high standard of evidence.




posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   
oh dear - this farce still being played out ?

the entire " argument " from squiz , and other is simple argument from ignorance / incredulity

and the evidence of this is simple - could they have raised the specific arguments they do , against naturalistic evolution - 100 years ago ?

the answer is in the vast majority of cases - the answer is - no - ie DNA was not even known of

this demonstrates that such arguments are from ignorance

QED


the latest " arguments " result from the latest real science - and that science is generating new questions as fast as it solves previously unknown dilemas

the inability to answer a question that has only just areisen - does not falsify evolutionary theory - it just means we dont know the answer , YET

and lastly - why , in a thread " why ` intilligent first cause ` must exist " - is there no actual evidence of this alledged inteligent first cause ?



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
reply to post by squiz
 

The scrutiny leveled at intelligent design, in my mind, is that the evidence for it isn't advancing anywhere but explaining a possible unprovable cause.

The same is true for materialism. Ie Abiogenesis has stalled well short and it is for the main reason I have been repeating. It is not just physics.
Do you think it is scientificaly impossible to detect design? What of SETI? You mention SETI, however I disagree the principles and approach are exactly the same. Archeology? Forensics etc... Do you think that material forces can create intangible formal controls, semantics? Do you think physics can create that which is not physical? What of consciousness? Do you think these are advancing anywhere and just proposing a unprovable cause under materialism?

Evolution (I hate the term Darwinism frankly) has been witnessed, as Meyer admits, and it is therefore not unreasonable to suppose that evolution could happen on a wider scale.

I need to refer to Darwinism because I believe in evolution but not the Darwinian view. I think it is erroneous to equate the word. Extrapolating the insignificant steps observed in lab conditions to the emergence of new organs, tissue types and body plans is an enormous leap of logic. In light of the evidence, the protein combinatorial explosion, negative epistasis and the fact that even Darwinian population mechanics estimates completely absurd lengths of time for just two mutations to work together, when many new features would require multiple mutations arcross multiple genes Is completely unreasonable. Also as I have mentioned there is a revolution occuring in evolutionary biology. Mutations are not random, at least the ones that matter and many mechanisms have been discovered that completely over shadow the simplistic view most are familiar with. I would be happy to give you some avenues to look into.

The argument from probability, perhaps I will be corrected (hopefully politely) .... Meyer urges me to accept that if something looks created then it was created.

That certainly is not the case.

Just because the universe is improbable it doesn't follow that an intelligent cause existed.

Very true, that is not how it works and that is not the argument.

We could argue that humanity existing is proof of a creator on the grounds that life appears to be unlikely in the universe, and we exist. We could also argue, however, that the scarcity of life is proof of a lack of creator or an amateur (not Godlike) creator. We could also appeal to the many design flaws in our evolution to make these arguments, too.

Detecting design is not about indentifying the designer. It is best to be removed from religion, it seems you have a religious point of view on this. My personal opinion is that biological evolution reflecfs the evolution of consciousness. It is consciousness expressing itself. In this view it can explain why things are not perfect, life is a struggle and conflict is part of the process of coming to balance. I think we have to think broader. All of these things are philosophical only and not scientific.

Drawing any combination of seven playing cards has the same statistical chance of drawing any other combination of seven playing cards ... the hand we're holding just seems special because we think we're a pair of aces.

The thing is at the very origin of life we see something extraordinary, semiosis a type of language. No amount of physical interactions can account for it. Also the probabilities when it comes to randomonly stumbling on even one protein is incomprehensible. Like a blind man looking for one atom in our entire galaxy of atoms. When we look at the pairwise interactions for the whole cell it is unimaginably large. These are not just speculations they have empirical support.

Cont...



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   

Put simply, ID as an origin of life explanation will always sit at the top of the tree throwing rocks even if it isn't true. That's precisely why it needs to require a high standard of evidence.

It can be falsified as I have put forward. A single empirical observation can do it. I see it much different. Design is obvious, meaning the appearence of design is overwhelming I don't think anyone can argue that. I do not believe the materialistic view has a high standard of evidence at all. Not for the origin of life and not for dispelling the illusion of design. Not for quantum physics. Not for the overwhelming evidence for survival of consciousness. And especially not for our inner manifest world of consciousness. You seem to think that what we have been told, the materialist view is the default position, but when we follow it to it's logical conclusions it is completely absurd and describes a world we don't live in.
You may appreciate Thomas Nagel's book better "Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False" for a different perspective. He is an Atheist philosopher so you won't have to be put off by the idea of God.

To sum up the basis of my argument is code. It is very easy to see why natural forces can not create it. It simply is not physics. There is no cause beyond mind, and nor will there ever be for reasons that are clearly self evident. It is irriducable. Semiosis is not of the material world. This is not hard to comprehend.
To believe otherwise is to believe you can squeeze language out of rocks. This does not depend on probabilities, complexity or anything like that.

Thank you for being a reasonable skeptic. I Recognize many of those arguments from the critics.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:08 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 




www.academia.edu... Therefore we have only one valid hypothesis. No amount of hot air can suffice


You post some crap sources at times squiz. It seems acedemia/goddidit.edu is run by a creationist/computer programmer from his own residence. Almost the entirety of his "peer reviewed" works have been published by a company owned by none other than the said creationist himself.

As bogus as it gets.



ps. how about these three null hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis 1. God didn't build us.
Null Hypothesis 2. God didn't build anything.
Null Hypothesis 3. God is a delusional fantasy.

A single observation to the contrary would falsify any of the above three null hypotheses. Instead of negative arguments against accepted science,where's your testable hypothesis that shows the designer (without the need of accepting your belief there is one). Where's god?




edit on 4-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Ok to sum up here is the argument from squiz which is based on facts.

The only known cause of code is from a mind.

It is simply an inference to the best cause that is in operation in our known experience.

Code is impervious to materialism because of the irriducible semiotic triad. The non physical nature of information and the non physical formal controls. Semiosis is not physics.

A single empirical observation can refute it.

For me it is a question of consciousness and not God.

It seems that nearly all have not heard about this before, I have spent years on it. No one has ever refuted it.

The fact that so many get upset about this, screaming logical fallacies, who created God and all this other rubbish is very revealing. I have had no religious upbringing at all, I have not read the bible, been to church, only a handful of times and hated it.

It seems that the vocal objectors are more driven by religion than they realise, maybe they had religion pushed on them or were altar boys or something.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:45 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Posting a mans house online? is that what we resort too? That is disgusting behaviour.

Why not attempt to address the issues instead of engaging in character assination?

Here's a list of his publications.
davidlabel.blogspot.com.au...

You may not realise how hard it is to crack through the walls of materialistic academia. Have you not noticed, people get fired rediculed and threatened.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Self published? Care to discuss the content?

Why not attempt to read some? You'll find he makes PZ intellect look like a chimps. There is no crapier resource online than PZ. Does he address the arguments. No. And people call me biased then they post sources from the millitant new atheists who are more interested in religion bashing than science.

PZ going up against someone like Abel is laughable, all he can do is slander insult and ridicule, actually addressing the content he has difficulty with.

These sort of tactics are pathetic, weak and transparent. What of my other links. What of Barcs book reviews as evidence? I am the only one posting actuall scientific papers, or had you not noticed?

I think I have had enough of this. I love science. This sort of crap has no place in it. Keeps your heads firmly in the sand. And when you come up for air you'll find that the only source fot code is still mind. And semiosis is still not physics. Abiogenesis is still stuck behind inpenetrable walls, and the modern synthesis is still dead. And people will still be returning from the dead with the same experiences of the trancendental.

Perhaps you can answer whether we have a mechanism beyond mind? can anyone admit it? Ignorant Ape?
Any takers? why can't anyone do it?

I know exactly why.
edit on 4-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

The only known cause of code is from a mind.


Your inference of what constitutes a code in this sense and whether it needs a creator, has been the subject of many pages of debate, which should tell you not all agree. The science community overwhelmingly seems to disagree with your claims at this stage.


For me it is a question of consciousness and not God.


So you say. Yet you happily accepted angels, spirit beings, flying around on pretty butterflies, floating around in puffy pink clouds, communicating with god in some new age/christian version of heaven as being quite valid, a few pages back. You seemed to argue in support of it.

Though consciousness is a fascinating subject and one of the more exciting areas in science at the moment. Is there a "hard problem" to account for? Even this hasn't been established yet (I believe there is), there are good arguments against it. I (like many others) have had tremendous transcendental type experiences from which it would be very easy to believe all sorts of things. Whether it pertains to an eternal aspect, or a trick of the mind, duality (unlikely IMO) or simply emergent, still fascinating.


It seems that nearly all have not heard about this before, I have spent years on it. No one has ever refuted it.


To your satisfaction, that is. That might never happen. There isn't an empirical observation that confirms what you are implying either. The reviews I have found on this, haven't been glowing and the self published works by some of the people you mention aren't treated seriously by most scientists.


The fact that so many get upset about this, screaming logical fallacies, who created God and all this other rubbish is very revealing. I have had no religious upbringing at all, I have not read the bible, been to church, only a handful of times and hated it.


Nice, but not very relevant.....there is quite a leap from personally interpreting something as being intelligently designed.....and validating it scientifically. You haven't done that (IMO). The fact that so many religious people will jump on the wagon in less than a millisecond given any remote chance that anything might favour of their primitive god, won't make it easier for you.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 




Perhaps you can answer whether we have a mechanism beyond mind?


Still no takers?

No wonder. The answer will collapse their world that they lean on.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz


Fair enough. I apologise and have removed the entire link to the article, as he seems to now not have it displayed publicly himself. So I agree that it was a mistake and unfair. Though you do realize he has advertised this publicly as the headquarters of some business/academic institution?


Here's a list of his publications.
davidlabel.blogspot.com.au...


I'm aware of this. You realise he owns the "Longview press" (or did when I last looked) that most of his "published works" appear in? That's fair enough, if it is made known.


Why not attempt to read some? You'll find he makes PZ intellect look like a chimps. There is no crapier resource online than PZ. Does he address the arguments. No. And people call me biased then they post sources from the millitant new atheists who are more interested in religion bashing than science.


It's gobbledegook IMO. I think he has his branches of science mixed up somewhat.


PZ going up against someone like Abel is laughable, all he can do is slander insult and ridicule, actually addressing the content he has difficulty with.


Only partly true. He does explain why he disagrees, even to some of the links you put up. It might be worth considering.


I think I have had enough of this. I love science. This sort of crap has no place in it. Keeps your heads firmly in the sand. And when you come up for air you'll find that the only source fot code is still mind. And semiosis is still not physics. Abiogenesis is still stuck behind inpenetrable walls, and the modern synthesis is still dead. And people will still be returning from the dead with the same experiences of the trancendental.


Quit, all you like. That won't make anyone agree with you. I disagree about abiogenesis and don't really find any argument you have put forth as dismissing evolution (which you seem ambivalent on). I agree with the last part, I just feel that you nor anyone else really knows why, as yet. There is so much nonsense around that it is seen as "fringe" which will just make it harder for genuine research.


Perhaps you can answer whether we have a mechanism beyond mind? can anyone admit it? Ignorant Ape?
Any takers? why can't anyone do it?


I see that as possible. Not a certainty. Perhaps not beyond the mind, so much as a fundamental basis for it. It "appears" to be eternal and omnipresent and experienced by many. Though that is an opinion of how it "feels" (I have no way of knowing the truth of it). I haven't discounted other very plausible and more mundane possibilities. I can see where, even if it turned out to be what it appears, as a product of the universe rather than something original.

Why do you think it is? What do you think it is?




edit on 4-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 

I am not asking anyone to accept the conclusions but the inference is as strong as any. All you need is a little knowledge of information and what it is and it becomes self evident as clear as day. It then becomes clear how the mind body problem is directly related. It is not even difficult to grasp.

The facts remain intact, the problem I have is people cannot even accept the facts I have outlined. It is almost like they fear it or something. They can't even admit we have no KNOWN mechanism except for mind. I also take issue with the childish and transparent tactics that you yourself are guilty of. PZ I mean common, what else do you expect of him?

And if you looked at the literature on NDEs you would know that what people experience is a realm of archetypes. In fact it was after Carl Jung's nde he developed his theories. The evidence is vast and all the researchers in that field are united and in agreement. Consciousness continues on. This changes everything.

I have had literally hundreds of mystical experiences, I have experienced things I would never mention here. It is not a guess for me, it is as real as the air I breathe.

Why would I expect many scientist to agree in a dominate materialistic paradigm? There are also many who do agree you know. Many of the greatest minds in history actually. Is truth a consensus? Many scientists are not even aware of this. The are compartmentalised and know little outside of thier field. And as you see with that bit of debate I posted nor can they deny the facts, unlike some here. They have to rely that somehow sometime materialism will provide an answer. I am fine with that.

But it is not about facts is it? It is about world views and ideologies. Blind Evolution has become the atheist religion. The modern synthesis is long dead.

Actually if you believe the human mind is the result of blind churning geared only to survival, the very basis of the arguments are in question. Because many beliefs can infer a survival advantage whether true or not, blind evolution does not care about truth. So there is no reason to believe that you can even percieve truth. The intellect as a result of materialism is questionable. All beliefs would be questionable even the belief that materialism is true. So the materialist shoots themselves in the foot before the even try to proclaim truth.

I have to say it again, the materialistic alternative is to believe that blind unguided forces can create a language! Where one arrangement of dead matter can communicate to another arrangement of matter and not through any physical means. Does this sound reasonable to you? I mean really?

This is why all attempts to explain life has failed.
edit on 4-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cogito, Ergo Sum

I see that as possible. Not a certainty. Perhaps not beyond the mind, so much as a fundamental basis for it. It "appears" to be eternal and omnipresent and experienced by many. Though that is an opinion of how it "feels" (I have no way of knowing the truth of it). I haven't discounted other very plausible and more mundane possibilities. I can see where, even if it turned out to be what it appears, as a product of the universe rather than something original.

Why do you think it is? What do you think it is?


I am really not sure what you are saying here, my question is very simple.

The only known mechanism for code, any code is from a mind. True or false?

The answer of course is true, it is the only known mechanism. Now if you want to believe it is possible that is fine with me. But absolutely bizzare as far as I am concerned. But that is not what I am asking. It is an empirical argument based on what is known.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
I am not asking anyone to accept the conclusions but the inference is as strong as any. All you need is a little knowledge of information and what it is and it becomes self evident as clear as day. It then becomes clear how the mind body problem is directly related. It is not even difficult to grasp.


I understand what you are saying. I just don't find it compelling.


They can't even admit we have no KNOWN mechanism except for mind. I also take issue with the childish and transparent tactics that you yourself are guilty of. PZ I mean common, what else do you expect of him?


I don't think any scientists claim to understand what consciousness is. In so far as the brain and its functions, they certainly have some understanding. Consciousness appears to be an emergent quality, I don't know how anyone could dispute that. There might be more to it.

I removed the link and apologised, though wish I could leave the article itself. I found your sources weren't outlined clearly as they could be, as to their origins. I find much creationist literature tries to be misleading this way.


And if you looked at the literature on NDEs you would know that what people experience is a realm of archetypes. In fact it was after Carl Jung's nde he developed his theories. The evidence is vast and all the researchers in that field are united and in agreement. Consciousness continues on. This changes everything.


I gave up relying on other peoples opinions long ago, regarding this subject. I have yet to meet any "expert" on this subject who didn't succumb to faith in some way. I'm not sold on a duality, as in a soul. I feel people will be disappointed as more is known. Yet what is found could be far more amazing.



Actually if you believe the human mind is the result of blind churning geared only to survival, the very basis of the arguments are in question. Because many beliefs can infer a survival advantage whether true or not, blind evolution does not care about truth. So there is no reason to believe that you can even percieve truth. The intellect as a result of materialism is questionable. All beliefs would be questionable even the belief that materialism is true. So the materialist shoots themselves in the foot before the even try to proclaim truth.


You do realise science changes, it isn't set in stone? It also doesn't explain everything. It is the best we have at this stage though, there is no better way to weed out bs IMO. The "intellect as a result of materialism" might seem questionable, but it would also seem dishonest to overlook the obvious. Which is all science has to go on, at this stage. I think you give science a bum wrap, I have no doubt scientists are open to many things.


I have to say it again, the materialistic alternative is to believe that blind unguided forces can create a language! Where one arrangement of dead matter can communicate to another arrangement of matter and not through any physical means. Does this sound reasonable to you? I mean really?



I was following the work of a scientist for a while. Will see if I can find some links if you would like. She (anthropologist) was working with neuroscientists and palaeontologists from fossils of the Australopiths onwards, particularly endocasts. Everything from bipedalism to dexterity (thumbs), speech, tools, art and culture all seemed to be consistent with brain changes/ growth in relevant areas and indicated a gradual increase in intelligence. All consistent with evolution.

Speech is a physical means, obviously. It takes movement, creates vibrations in the atmosphere (sound) that travels to the inner ear etc. I see no problem with evolution. I'm more interested in the process of perception, how we interpret what comes from the senses. Most people have no clue how this really works, it simply isn't what we think it is. Neuroscience is beginning to understand more of this process.


This is why all attempts to explain life has failed.


Or it could simply be more obvious, that like so many other things that were not understood at one stage, they will get their eventually.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Sure, the goal being error protection. Selection does not create anything it is not a force it is a consequence. An evolving code makes no difference. What does a code evolve from besides a simpler code?

Error protection was the outcome, not the goal.



I am not talking about evolution, I am talking about the birth of evolution. There is no life before semiosis and code and there is no biological evolution before it. Chemistry has failed to account for it, because it is not just chemistry alone.

Sure there is. Autocatalytic RNA sets fall under the jurisdiction of natural selection..


It is formal and it is conceptually ideal. So how did the code survive long enough for random churning to arrive at the protective measures that would ensure it's stability?

I don't know what you mean by formal, but it's certainly not ideal. The code evolved to be relative stable, by natural selection.
edit on 4-6-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz

I am really not sure what you are saying here, my question is very simple.

The only known mechanism for code, any code is from a mind. True or false?

The answer of course is true, it is the only known mechanism. Now if you want to believe it is possible that is fine with me. But absolutely bizzare as far as I am concerned. But that is not what I am asking. It is an empirical argument based on what is known.


Yes, you misunderstood me. I wasn't answering the question in this context (so perhaps I also misunderstood your question). My thoughts on this are already stated. I have doubts about your perceived "code" itself in the context you place it and as already stated, find your friend has his areas of science mixed up. This is only one area that creationists would need to explain (which they haven't), the scope is vast. It'll probably require evidence of the creator itself IMO. Think I'll wait till then, rather than place some unknown there unnecessarily with the very high probability that I will have to remove him again (as has been known to happen, continually, for centuries.....), thanks.


There is more to the mind itself though, which is what I was referring to. Different question altogether, it seems.


edit on 4-6-2013 by Cogito, Ergo Sum because: for the heck of it.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


We Call everything a system, andprity much put everything in a system. Probably because every finite particle and matter is in a system.

A sytem can never be random. Random comes from Scientific lack of explanation. This is where Our mind comes in With theories to try and put the randomness into a system. This is probably one of the main goals within science, to solve random causes.



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by rhinoceros
 


More just so stories. Tiresome. What does code evolve from?

news.illinois.edu...

I’m convinced that the RNA world (hypothesis) is not correct,” Caetano-Anollés said. “That world of nucleic acids could not have existed if not tethered to proteins.”

The ribosome is a “ribonucleoprotein machine,” a complex that can have as many as 80 proteins interacting with multiple RNA molecules, so it makes sense that this assemblage is the result of a long and complicated process of gradual co-evolution, Caetano-Anollés said. Furthermore, “you can’t get RNA to perform the molecular function of protein synthesis that is necessary for the cell by itself.”

Proponents of the RNA world hypothesis make basic assumptions about the evolutionary origins of the ribosome without proper scientific support, Caetano-Anollés said. The most fundamental of these assumptions is that the part of the ribosome that is responsible for protein synthesis, the peptidyl transferase center (PTC) active site, is the most ancient.
.......

Doolittle remains puzzled, however, by “the notion that some early proteins were made before the evolution of the ribosome as a protein-manufacturing system.” He wondered how – if proteins were more ancient than the ribosomal machinery that today produces most of them –“the amino acid sequences of those early proteins were ‘remembered’ and incorporated into the new system.”


How indeed.

asunews.asu.edu...


"Chemical based approaches," Walker said, "have stalled at a very early stage of chemical complexity -- very far from anything we would consider 'alive.' More seriously they suffer from conceptual shortcomings in that they fail to distinguish between chemistry and biology."



As theoretical biologist Howard Pattee explains, "There is no evidence that hereditary evolution [natural selection] occurs except in cells which already have ... the DNA, the replicating and translating enzymes, and all the control systems and structures necessary to reproduce themselves.


Also, Top five problems with origin of life theories.

www.evolutionnews.org...







edit on 4-6-2013 by squiz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


But it is not about facts is it? It is about world views and ideologies. Blind Evolution has become the atheist religion. The modern synthesis is long dead.


I think you're right in what you say here. It's unfortunate that the evidence being presented for ID is being construed as an attempt to prove God (or a God) is behind it. That's not necessarily the case, at least not in what you've been saying (IMO). But since this debate is being had in a thread that immediately proclaimed God as being the "designer", then you and your ideas will be viewed through those glasses and argued through that bullhorn. Perhaps if this was in a thread of your own where God wouldn't be part of the initial hypothesis we might be able to have a meaningful debate without all the personal attacks and the "I know more than you do" nonsense.

Regardless of all that, it seems that a materialist's way to combat ID is by labeling it as a theory based in religious fanatism or mysticism. It provides them comfort and protection to dismiss it that way since it falls outside the boundaries of the current construct of materialistic science. How many babies will they throw out with the bath water before they realize it was there the whole time?

It's no different then when we thought that the earth was flat or that the sun and stars (and the entire universe) all revolved around our planet. Any attempt to proclaim otherwise and you were considered a heretic and burned at the stake. Thank goodness times have changed, eh?

It's funny in way- Each time we looked out into the distance we wondered what we were observing. Each time we looked out a bit further we tried to explain it based on the prevailing views of the world at the time. And each time, as it turns out, we were proven, almost embarrassingly, wrong.

First it was the when we looked out over the horizon and thought the earth was flat and we'd fall off the edge. Then came when we looked out to the stars, and thought that the universe was earth centric. Now the prevailing theory is all about the big bang. And perhaps moving towards multiple big bangs (multi-verses). The good news is we're moving in the right direction. The bad news is we're still very far away. Our consciousness is evolving, and becoming deeper, and ever so little moving towards a universal consciousness and a better understanding of who we are. (Materialists may very well consider even that idea to be "heresy")

I think the true answer will present itself in due time, in this existence or the next. But just one materialistic approach is not enough to figure it out. It's only one piece of the puzzle. It has to be a multi-disciplined approach if we are going to find the answers we want. Ideas, theories, experiences, beliefs & philosophies from all different sources will be required. The universe is not flat. It has many layers, many beyond what our 5 sense allow us to perceive. It may very well turn out that everyone will be right in the end.

I still can't get away from the idea that there is one unifying, underlying force behind it all. It appears, on the surface, to all be the result of some very chaotic and completely random events... But the more we look into it all, the more it seems that the process appears to be exceptionally precise and almost deliberate. Highly improbable given what we know.

I've always wondered if we are just an accident. The result of a completely random set of circumstances. I'm leaning heavily towards no.

You can't build a sand castle just by throwing buckets of sand to the ground, no matter how many times you try. The current way of materialistic thinking would have us believe otherwise it seems.
edit on 4-6-2013 by PhotonEffect because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum
 


Cogito, you seem to be under the impression that this semiosis problem is exclusive to ID. It is not there is a vast amount of work being done on. it beginning in the 60's soon after the discovery that DNA functioned through code, and well before modern ID. There are many researchers involved in it who are not ID theorists.

It is a code that is undeniable and it is semiotic and this demands explanation. No one has been able to solve the problem. This is because the symbols control the matter while the physical laws do not control the symbols or the coded references, it does this without breaking any physical laws what so ever.

It is completely incoherant under materialism.

I absolutely agree with PhotonEffect, religion and the word God has clouded and polarised the issue.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join