Very, Very Soon
Sunday, January 15, 2017
About That Oparin Prediction …
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Although we have chronicled all manner of new and rehashed ideas for how life is supposed to have evolved—including the latest doozy that life arose “almost instantaneously”—Alexander Oparin’s 1924 prediction that origin of life research would be solved “very, very soon” may not only have been premature but, in fact, out and out false. For as evolutionist Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo now admits, most likely we will, err, “never manage to find the answer to how life began.” Fortunately evolution is a fact, otherwise people might begin to doubt.
How Religion Drives Science and Why it Matters
Cornelius Hunter
Blog Archive
-
▼
2017
(55)
-
▼
January
(17)
- About Those Placental Regulatory Genes
- Regulatory Genes Are Expressed For But a Few Hours
- How Big is the Closet?
- The Sea Anemone: A Proverbial Precambrian Rabbit
- Repetitive Elements: Evolution Has a Toolkit, And ...
- About That Oparin Prediction …
- Evolutionists Now Have a Simple Proposal For The O...
- Merrilee Salmon Propagates the Warfare Thesis
- The Science Contradicts The Theory
- Graur and Martin Explain Monumental Failure in Mol...
- Tasneem Zehra Husain, The Multiverse, and Plenitude
- “When Facts Fail”: Oh The Irony
- Evolutionist: Evolution Is Happening Faster Than W...
- Desert Mice Fur Changes Color to Match the Terrain
- Orangutan Does What No Chimp Has Ever Done
- A Salamander Two-fer: Non Homologous Development a...
- Field Studies Pay Off: “I was flabbergasted” (By T...
-
▼
January
(17)
I can't wait for the next installment in this Creationist series:
ReplyDelete"Most likely we will never manage to find the answer to what happened to Amelia Earhart, therefore everything science knows about heavier-than-air powered flight in the last 100+ years is all wrong!.
Creationist "logic" at its finest. :)
ghostrider,
Delete"Most likely we will never manage to find the answer to what happened to Amelia Earhart, therefore everything science knows about heavier-than-air powered flight in the last 100+ years is all wrong!."
Creationist "logic" at its finest. :)
Thank you for the stellar example of false equivalency. Well done. And yet you have the nerve to criticise creationist logic? I'll retire to bedlam.
Timmy doesn't know his place- your position doesn't have anything to do with science, Timmy.
DeleteGood thing that theists have never made wrong predictions.
ReplyDeleteBut it is true that we will never know for sure how life originated. Or all of the steps involved in the evolution of the flagellum. All we can do is come up with an explanation that is consistent with the evidence. Without hopping in to the way-back machine, we can never know for sure.
All we can do is come up with an explanation that is consistent with the evidence.
DeleteInteligent Design is that explanation
Joke: "Inteligent Design is that explanation."
DeleteSorry Joe, but without a mechanism to realize the design, ID is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Yes you are sorry, wee willie. You are also very ignorant of science. And you need to buy a dictionary as design is a mechanism.
DeleteBut I digress- the how always comes AFTER design has been detected. That is how it works in archaeology and forensic science. So only a complete ignoramus would have ID do something different.
Joke
Deletethe how always comes AFTER design has been detected.
You IDiots told us 11 years ago at Kitzmiller v. Dover you had already detected design. What research has been done since then to determine the "how" the design was implemented? You can't point to any. The professional ID clowns paid by the DI can't even come up with a hypothesis to test.
William, I am simply waiting for some semblance of an explanation for first life that is vaguely consistent with the evidence. I have seen no such explanation. Honest, informed scientists all admit that no such explanation exists.
DeleteJoke:"But I digress- the how always comes AFTER design has been detected. That is how it works in archaeology and forensic science."
DeleteNo, it is the how that confirms that design occurred.
BFast: "Honest, informed scientists all admit that no such explanation exists."
DeleteHas anyone here suggested otherwise?
bFast
DeleteWilliam, I am simply waiting for some semblance of an explanation for first life that is vaguely consistent with the evidence. I have seen no such explanation. Honest, informed scientists all admit that no such explanation exists
What scientists anywhere ever said abiogenesis has been solved? Right now we have several hypotheses all with varying amounts of evidence. We're trying to figure out sequences which happened over 4 billion years go and which left almost zero evidence. If we never determine conclusively how life arose that still doesn't mean you get to fill in the gaps with whatever fairy story most appeals to you.
William,
ReplyDelete"..., without a mechanism to realize the design, ID is nothing more than wishful thinking."
You do not need to know the mechanism by which something may have been designed in order to detect it was, in fact, designed.
Nic"You do not need to know the mechanism by which something may have been designed in order to detect it was, in fact, designed."
ReplyDeleteWithout some understanding of the limitations of the proposed designer and an understanding of the mechanisms available to that designer, there has been no single example of detecting design. Yet, Most ID proponents refuse to speculate on these.
William,
ReplyDelete"Without some understanding of the limitations of the proposed designer and an understanding of the mechanisms available to that designer, there has been no single example of detecting design."
These factors are irrelevant to the ability to detect basic design elements. I agree knowing the nature of the designer and any mechanisms which may have been used may increase the understanding of the designed artifact, but they are not necessary to the basic determination that something was designed.
As for speculating, it may at times be helpful, but too often can lead one down the wrong line of investigation.
Nic
DeleteThese factors are irrelevant to the ability to detect basic design elements.
What are these basic design elements? We know how humans usually design things but how do you know the mind, abilities, and limitations of a completely unknown possibly supernatural entity?
Nic: "These factors are irrelevant to the ability to detect basic design elements."
DeleteIf that is true, you, or Joe, or Cornelius should be able to provide an example of a case where we have detected design without having some understanding of the limitations that the designer is bound by or some idea of the possible mechanisms used to produce it. Joe will try to say that Stonehenge is such an example but that is bogus.
William,
Delete"What are these basic design elements? We know how humans usually design things but how do you know the mind, abilities, and limitations of a completely unknown possibly supernatural entity?"
Functionally integrated working parts would be an element used to detect design as would a combination of structural elements unlikely to occur from any naturally occurring force such as wind or water.
At Athabasca Falls in Jasper National Park there is a small portion of the river bank downstream from the Falls where there is a collection of rocks stacked in a variety of patterns. I did not need to see how these rocks were placed or who placed them, nor did I need to know anything about the person who placed them, or have any idea as to the reason they were placed there, to know they were not created by the flowing water of the Athabasca River or the wind swirling in the cove where they are found.
As for the mind, abilities and limitations of a designer, knowing these things would help in understanding the nature and the intended function of the designed artifact, but we do not need to know or understand these factors to simply detect design.
William,
Delete"If that is true, you, or Joe, or Cornelius should be able to provide an example of a case where we have detected design without having some understanding of the limitations that the designer is bound by or some idea of the possible mechanisms used to produce it."
Why? If I cannot provide such an example how does that prove one cannot detect design without knowing the designer or any mechanism it may use?
A good example of this is the SETI project. If it were to detect a signal it determined to be from an intelligent source would they deny it is designed because they know nothing of the identity or limitations of the designer or of the mechanisms used to produce the signal?
Nic: "Why? If I cannot provide such an example how does that prove one cannot detect design without knowing the designer or any mechanism it may use?"
DeleteI would certainly not criticize you or any individual person because they can't come up with an example. But the fact that absolutely nobody has done so is very telling.
"A good example of this is the SETI project. If it were to detect a signal it determined to be from an intelligent source would they deny it is designed because they know nothing of the identity or limitations of the designer or of the mechanisms used to produce the signal?"
SETI is a search for design for something with a known mechanism. Electromagnetic transmission of information. By it's "design" SETI is restricting its search to beings who use the electromagnetic spectrum in the same way that we do. As such, if we find a signal, we already know something about the designer and the mechanism being used.
William,
Delete"But the fact that absolutely nobody has done so is very telling."
In what way? To come up with an example as you describe would require one to come across something totally unique. Something completely outside our experience, would it not?
"SETI is a search for design for something with a known mechanism. Electromagnetic transmission of information."
But that is simply an assumption on your part. What if the alien designers have a completely different method of generating these signals? Perhaps what is being detected is not even intended to be a form of communication? Everything would be based on pure speculation, and very weak speculation at best.
Nic: "In what way? To come up with an example as you describe would require one to come across something totally unique. Something completely outside our experience, would it not?"
DeleteBut, if it is something completely outside our experience, how to we conclude that it is designed?
"But that is simply an assumption on your part."
Not really. SETI was started based on the assumption that intelligent life that is similar to us (not it form but in ability to manipulate nature, metallurgy, living in an atmosphere, etc.) may use the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate. As such, we should be able to separate their signals from those produced through natural mechanisms.
I am very skeptical of SETI. Not because the basic principal is wrong, but based on the fact that the power that they use to produce a signal would have to be immense, and it would have to be tightly focused (given the distances involved).
Totally off topic, my son is getting married in the fall. That is two in two years. I may have to start crowd funding.
William,
Delete"But, if it is something completely outside our experience, how to we conclude that it is designed?"
Imagine you were to wake up one morning to find your car replaced in your driveway with an odd shaped object which was simply hovering over your driveway while not producing any sound whatsoever. Actually it does not demonstrate in any way that it is expending any energy at all. Upon further investigation it is found to be constructed of a material totally unknown to man and covered in symbols also totally unknown to man. It is also determined there are no tool marks or any marks of any kind providing clues as to how it may have been produced.
Are you going to stand there and claim it is not designed because you have no idea as to the nature of the designer or the mechanisms used to produce the object? Of course not. The fact it is deigned is obvious from the object itself, completely independent of any knowledge of the designer or the knowledge of any process of design and construction.
Nic:"But that is simply an assumption on your part."
"Not really. SETI was started based on the assumption that intelligent life that is similar to us (not it form but in ability to manipulate nature, metallurgy, living in an atmosphere, etc.) may use the electromagnetic spectrum to communicate. As such, we should be able to separate their signals from those produced through natural mechanisms."
That just what I said, William. SETI is based on the assumptive speculation that such signals will have been produced by methods with which we are familiar, by creatures which we would assume to be at least remotely similar to ourselves. That may be the furthest thing from the truth but we would still be able to determine with a high degree of probability that they were the result of intent and design.
I have this little scenario bouncing around in my mind that some day it will be announced that a signal has been detected and a group of experts are working around the clock in an effort to clean the signal up enough to gather the possible information it contains. Then after years of work by hundreds of experts they finally sit down to view the results and it turns out to be an episode of Howdy Doody which had bounced back to Earth from some distant object.
I know it wouldn't happen, but it would be funny:)
"Totally off topic, my son is getting married in the fall. That is two in two years. I may have to start crowd funding."
Congratulations! Is this the last one or do you have a few more to go? People sure have long engagements these days. My wife and I were married 10 months after we met.
If you do start a crowd funding page let me know, I will be glad to contribute.:)
Nic: "imagine you were to wake up one morning to find your car replaced in your driveway with an odd shaped object..."
DeleteBut this is pure speculation. Of course, if I saw that, I would agree that the likely conclusion would be that it was designed. But the claim is that it is possible to identify designs without knowing anything about the limitations on the designer or the mechanisms available to the designer. It is a claim without a single real example.
And, let's not forget, we are talking about design in areas (biological structures) that are different than every other example of confirmed design that we know.
For example, we are able to insert glycoprotein antifreeze genes from fish into tomatoes. Clearly designed. If we ran into one of these FrankenTomatoes, without any knowledge of genetic engineering, would we conclude design?
"That just what I said, William. SETI is based on the assumptive speculation that such signals will have been produced by methods with which we are familiar, by creatures which we would assume to be at least remotely similar to ourselves."
Nic, I think that you are looking at SETI backwards. The idea was not derived from 'if we find an electromagnetic signal, what would the intelligence be like?' It was devoloped from the question, 'if there are other intelligences in the universe that are similar to us in capabilities and limitations, is there anything they do that could be detected from earth?' Radio signals.
Thank you for the congrats. Their engagement will only be nine months. Ours was only ten. We have one more daughter. The twin of the one that got married last year. She just moved in with her boyfriend, so it is only a matter of time.
William,
Delete"But the claim is that it is possible to identify designs without knowing anything about the limitations on the designer or the mechanisms available to the designer. It is a claim without a single real example.'
That's correct. As for not knowing anything about the designer and its limitations depends totally on the parameters you put on those terms. For example, I know sports cars are designed by human beings who are limited by the laws of physics in terms of race performance. But knowing those factors is not what tells me the race car was designed.
Consider another scenario. You wake up tomorrow and find a completely unique Ferrari sitting in your driveway. You ask your friend who is an expert on all things related to car design and especially Ferrari design. He assures you it was designed by the engineers at Ferrari's Italian headquarters and built in a local factory using all the regular tools and equipment. You would have no problem with that, correct?
Now, what if that was not the case at all? What if Ferrari denied having anything whatsoever to do with the design and manufacture of the said vehicle.
I assume you would immediately assume it had to be made by someone else. But again, what if that was not the case either? What would be the difference in your perception of the fact the Ferrari was designed?
"And, let's not forget, we are talking about design in areas (biological structures) that are different than every other example of confirmed design that we know."
There is your example. Though, as a Christian, I believe there are no limitations on God as a designer, so perhaps such an example does not count.
"For example, we are able to insert glycoprotein antifreeze genes from fish into tomatoes. Clearly designed. If we ran into one of these FrankenTomatoes, without any knowledge of genetic engineering, would we conclude design?"
Well, as I conclude design in reference to the plain tomato, I personally would have to conclude, yes.
"Nic, I think that you are looking at SETI backwards. The idea was not derived from 'if we find an electromagnetic signal, what would the intelligence be like?' It was devoloped from the question, 'if there are other intelligences in the universe that are similar to us in capabilities and limitations, is there anything they do that could be detected from earth?' Radio signals."
What ever approach was taken, the process and the objective are the same, to discover whether there is intelligent life beyond Earth.
"Thank you for the congrats. Their engagement will only be nine months. Ours was only ten. We have one more daughter. The twin of the one that got married last year. She just moved in with her boyfriend, so it is only a matter of time."
I see I misread your comment. You said two in two years and I saw it as in two years they will be getting married. I really need to slow down sometimes when I read. I try to go too fast and make assumptions on what is being said. Never the less, I'm sure it will be a great time and I am sure you are looking forward to it.
Is the wedding close to home?
Nic: "Well, as I conclude design in reference to the plain tomato, I personally would have to conclude, yes."
DeleteFair enough. But, I think you will admit, your base view is one based on faith. And that you have not seen anything to disabuse yourself of that view. But, assuming that your base view wasn't one of design, what logic would you use to conclude that the genetically engineered tomato was designed?
"What ever approach was taken, the process and the objective are the same, to discover whether there is intelligent life beyond Earth."
That may be true. But one is scientifically based and the other isn't.
wee willie:
DeleteIf that is true, you, or Joe, or Cornelius should be able to provide an example of a case where we have detected design without having some understanding of the limitations that the designer is bound by or some idea of the possible mechanisms used to produce it.
That is how archaeology works, willie. First design is detected and then they get to work on the who and how. Saying "humans" is a what, not a who and they know what the designers are capable of by the designs they left behind.
How do we know the ancients were capable of producing the Antikythera mechanism? The Antikythera mechanism! If we didn't have it we would never suspect the ancients were capable of producing it. And we still don't know who nor how.
We can detect design just by our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And we can refute any given design inference by demonstrating non-telic processes can account for it.
Not that wee willie is capable of understanding that
wee willie:
DeleteBut, assuming that your base view wasn't one of design, what logic would you use to conclude that the genetically engineered tomato was designed?
It wouldn't have to be genetically engineered as your doesn't have a mechanism of accounting for any tomatoes. Heck given starting populations of prokaryotes yours can only produce more populations of prokaryotes.
So a thorough examination of the tomato and plant would lead us to the design inference
Joke: "That is how archaeology works, willie."
DeleteArchaeology is about the study of historic human artifacts and cultures. The last time I looked, we know that humans can reason, can think, can plan, can design, can build, are dexterous, can intentionally manipulate nature, can think ahead, have a finite amount of strength that can be extended by the development and use of tools, etc. We also have a fairly good history of when different tools became available in manufacturing. In short, when we see a man-made artifact, we never look at it and say, dolphins must have made that. Or aliens, or gods. Why is that? Could it be that we have a very good grasp of the limitations of humans and the potential mechanisms available to them?
"How do we know the ancients were capable of producing the Antikythera mechanism?"
The Greek inscriptions of the Roman months might have been a clue. It was made of bronze, an alloy that was used long before the production of this artifact. It is a geared mechanism produced at a time when other geared mechanisms were in existence and known to be of human manufacture.
Again, provide me with a confirmed example of design when we did not have an understanding of the nature and limitations of the designer and the mechanisms available to them?
William,
Delete"Fair enough. But, I think you will admit, your base view is one based on faith."
I expect you will deny it, but so is yours.
"But, assuming that your base view wasn't one of design, what logic would you use to conclude that the genetically engineered tomato was designed?"
Common sense logic, it's as simple as that. It has been demonstrated that very young children have a sense of design from the outset. Some evolutionary educators are pushing for schools to begin at a very early age pushing the evolutionary view in an attempt to subvert what seems to come naturally to man. Why is that?
"That may be true. But one is scientifically based and the other isn't."
Why is one scientific and the other not?
Wow, way to miss the point. If we didn't ever find the Antikythera mechanism we would never of thought the ancients were capable of designing and producing it. Before it was found we had no idea those people could design and manufacture such a thing. That fulfills your criteria
DeleteIt's as if you are totally everything but your agenda.
Again we only know about ancient peoples by what they left behind. We wouldn't have any idea of what they were capable of without that.
That means we came to have an understanding of the nature and limitations of the designers and the mechanisms used by studying what they left behind- at first we didn't know and now we do.
Nic: "It has been demonstrated that very young children have a sense of design from the outset."
DeleteI don't doubt that. But are we talking about human design. Or non-human design? Last I looked, young children are human with functioning brains and a pretty good "instinctive" understanding of what it means to be human.
"Some evolutionary educators are pushing for schools to begin at a very early age pushing the evolutionary view in an attempt to subvert what seems to come naturally to man."
They are pushing for teaching science at an early age. Do you argue against teaching chemistry, or physics, or biology at an early age? Much of that goes against what "seems to come naturally". And what is with the "attempt to subvert" nonsense? Much of education is about teaching about things that do not appear obvious at first glance.
Catholic schools in Canada teach Christianity from junior kindergarten. And that is enshrined in the constitution. Do you have a problem with that?
"Why is one scientifically based and the other not?
I am not saying that ID can't be scientifically based. Just that, for some reason, they choose not to pursue that approach. If they are serious about pursuing their theory scientifically, they have to step beyond just pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory and disagreements amongst evolutionary biologists. Even though they have a dedicated "peer reviewed" journal dedicated to ID, they garnered a total of four papers in 2016, two of them as a two parter. And all authors are also editors of the journal. And the CVs of the editors are embarrassingly out of date (before someone tries to correct me, this was written from memory. I may be off by a paper or two).
William,
Delete"They are pushing for teaching science at an early age. Do you argue against teaching chemistry, or physics, or biology at an early age?"
Of course not. However, chemistry, physics, biology, etc., have nothing to do with evolution unless one is predisposed to believing evolution. Biology can be practised and taught without reference to evolution, as can chemistry, etc.
"And what is with the "attempt to subvert" nonsense?"
On reflection I agree, subvert is too strong a word. But I do see it as an attempt to dissuade children from following what appears to be an instinctive path of reasoning.
"Catholic schools in Canada teach Christianity from junior kindergarten. And that is enshrined in the constitution. Do you have a problem with that?"
As a Christian it would be pretty silly if I did, don't you think?:)
"I am not saying that ID can't be scientifically based. Just that, for some reason, they choose not to pursue that approach."
I guess we will just have to leave that one as a matter of opinion as the practitioners of science are not always in agreement as to what constitutes science.
Do you argue against teaching chemistry, or physics, or biology at an early age?
DeleteIt depends on what is being said.
I am not saying that ID can't be scientifically based. Just that, for some reason, they choose not to pursue that approach. If they are serious about pursuing their theory scientifically, they have to step beyond just pointing out gaps in evolutionary theory and disagreements amongst evolutionary biologists.
IDists have- for the gaps are soooo huge the claims of this alleged theory cannot be tested. For another all ID wants now is to be able to conduct scientific research and come to a design inference if warranted. And with living organisms the criteria for the design inference has been met by several orders of magnitude.
There isn't anything about living organisms their systems and subsystems that points to blind and mindless processes.
The genetic code- again fully researched- it is a real code used for communication purposes. Everything we know about such codes is they only arise via intentional agency volition. If you could show such a thing can arise via non-telic processes you could win up to 10.1 million dollars
Moi: "Do you argue against teaching chemistry, or physics, or biology at an early age?"
DeleteJoke: "It depends on what is being said."
Well, they certainly don't teach that Frequency = Wavelength or that Ice <> Water.
"For another all ID wants now is to be able to conduct scientific research and come to a design inference if warranted. And with living organisms the criteria for the design inference has been met by several orders of magnitude."
Citation please.
"Everything we know about such codes [DNA] is they only arise via intentional agency volition."
Since we only know once source of confirmed intelligently designed codes (ie, human codes) extrapolation from a sample size of one is statistically invalid. That is like saying that because ice melts into water that all other solids do the same.
LoL! What type of imbecile thinks that water and ice are the same thing?
DeleteCitation please.
Every peer-reviewed paper on living organisms, their systems and subsystems. Your position doesn't have a mechanism capable of accounting for any of it and it meets the design criteria
Since we only know once source of confirmed intelligently designed codes (ie, human codes) extrapolation from a sample size of one is statistically invalid.
Dolt- it's called knowledge of cause and effect relationships. And yours doesn't have a mechanism capable of producing codes used in communication. No one knows how such a thing could come about.
BTW if ice melts into water that proves they are not the same, duh.
Joe,
Delete"BTW if ice melts into water that proves they are not the same, duh."
But they are the same. Water can exist in three states; liquid, solid and gaseous. That's grade 4 science, Joe.
William,
Delete"Since we only know once source of confirmed intelligently designed codes (ie, human codes) extrapolation from a sample size of one is statistically invalid."
It is true we have knowledge of only one source of intelligent codes, as you say, human codes. However, we have many different examples of human codes, such as mathematical, linguistic, sound, images, etc. So we can safely conclude there are many types of codes available. But we also observe these codes, as already stated, arise from a single source, man. And that this source functions intelligently. (For the most part, anyway. Exceptions being often found at sporting events:)
It is also true that extrapolating from single example is statistically risky, but not completely invalid or unfounded. For example, how many times would we need to shoot someone to conclude it was not conducive to good health? How many times would you need to walk off the edge of a tall building to conclude you do not float? We extrapolate from single occurrences on a regular basis, so to argue that extrapolation from a single source is not statistically valid is not valid in all instances.
The obvious next question is, do we have any examples of codes arising from non-intelligent sources? The answer is obviously, no. Therefore, if it is statistically invalid to extrapolate from a single source, as you claim, how much more invalid is it to assume a code could arise from a non-intelligent source when we have zero examples on which to base that extrapolation?
Joke: "BTW if ice melts into water that proves they are not the same, duh."
DeleteIce = H2O
Water = H2O
Therefore...
But, given your refusal to understand what is meant by the = sign (eg., your continued claim that Frequency = Wavelength), your confusion is easy to understand.
"Dolt- it's called knowledge of cause and effect relationships."
Don't you mean "relationship"? Singular? Man made codes are known to be caused by man. Sounds like a self fulfilling circular argument. Sample size of one. Can you provide me with an example of any code that is known to be caused by any intelligence other than human? Just to make this more amusing, I know of several. Let's see if you are smart enough to figure out what they are. And, for the bonus prize, see if you can figure out why they are no more valid in extrapolation to DNA than human codes are.
wee willie:
DeleteIce = H2O
Water = H2O
Therefore...
...you are a moron. Water and ice are different, acartia. The matrix is different.
I never said the two were not made of H2O. I am smart enough to know the difference between a liquid and a solid. Obviously you are a little short on the smarts.
Don't you mean "relationship"? Singular? Man made codes are known to be caused by man.
We go with what we have. It's called science. We don't use imagination like evolutionists do. Nature doesn't produce communication codes.
The genetic code is a real code in the same sense as Morse code. mRNA codons represent amino acids, they do not become them. It is an arbitrary arrangement, meaning it is not determined by physics and chemistry. The mRNA codons are the symbols carrying the message that is translated by the ribosomes into a polypeptide.
OTOH every one of your examples will fail to qualify as such a code. No one speaks of the tree ring code. Your examples will just further expose you as a clueless dolt.
Even Larry Moran says then genetic code is a real code in the same sense as Morse codes. OTOH I bet that you don't even grasp the concept of what a code is.
Nic:
DeleteBut they are the same. Water can exist in three states; liquid, solid and gaseous.
You just said they were the same and then said they are different. That's funny
Water is not a solid and it is not gas. The three are different. A hail storm his much different than a rain storm is different from a steam bath. A coke with ice is different than a coke with water- never mind the steam. Cleaning with steam is much more effective at removing grease than cleaning the same grease with ice.
There is a reason they don't play pond hockey in Florida.
Did you know that there is a minimum number of H2O molecules before an ice crystal can form (given the right temp)?
H2O is H2O, that's true. But the different matrix each different state acquires makes all of the difference in the world.
William,
Delete"You just said they were the same and then said they are different. That's funny"
I guess I have egg on my face with that one. Water is the liquid state of H2O, ice is the solid state and steam the gaseous state.
Is that better.:)
Nic, I know they are different states of the same molecule. My point is that they are different.
DeleteDoes the surface tension of water = ice = steam? No. We have different words for each state because they are different. Even ice has different states.
William & Joe
DeleteI am simply incorrigible. I am forever typing in the wrong name when I reply lately. Sometimes I catch it, other times, like this, I miss it. I must be getting senile. Sorry to you both.
Moi: "Can you provide me with an example of any code that is known to be caused by any intelligence other than human? Just to make this more amusing, I know of several. Let's see if you are smart enough to figure out what they are."
DeleteJoke's response: " "
Just as expected.
Nic: " And that this source functions intelligently. (For the most part, anyway. Exceptions being often found at sporting events:)"[And whoever Joe writes anything[
Deletewee willie:
Delete"Can you provide me with an example of any code that is known to be caused by any intelligence other than human?"
Why does that even matter? If it comes for an intelligence other than human it still comes for an intelligent agency.
So what is your point, willie? make it, if you can. I doubt that you can, though
Nic: "How many times would you need to walk off the edge of a tall building to conclude you do not float?"
DeleteThere is a difference between a physical "law" such as gravity that can be tested extensively to conclude that solid objects will always fall to earth, and extrapolating from intelligently made human codes to conclude that DNA is intelligently made.
"The obvious next question is, do we have any examples of codes arising from non-intelligent sources?"
No, the next question we have to ask is whether the "code" we see in DNA is analogous to we human codes.
wee willie:
DeleteThere is a difference between a physical "law" such as gravity that can be tested extensively to conclude that solid objects will always fall to earth, and extrapolating from intelligently made human codes to conclude that DNA is intelligently made.
That codes only arise from intelligent agencies has been studied extensively. No one has ever observed nature producing such codes.
No, the next question we have to ask is whether the "code" we see in DNA is analogous to we human codes.
Enter Larry Moran, no friend of ID- the real genetic code. He just thinks nature can produce it even though he doesn't have a clue as to how. His is a deep faith.
The genetic code isn't analogous to human codes, it is the same. It matches the definition perfectly and even wikipedia lists it as a code as being the same type as our codes.
Everything written about the genetic code says that mRNA codons represent amino acids and that the relationship is arbitrary rather than physically/ chemically determined.
The science has been done and the verdict in- the genetic code is a code in the same sense of our communication codes.
Nic: "I am simply incorrigible. I am forever typing in the wrong name when I reply lately. Sometimes I catch it, other times, like this, I miss it. I must be getting senile. Sorry to you both."
DeleteAccidentally referring to Joe by my name can only be complimentary to him. Myself, on the other hand...:)
Joe knows there is a difference between a solid and liquid. William doesn't appear to.
DeleteRepeat after me:
Hail is made up of ice
Rain is made up of water
Hail can dent your car and break your windshield
Rain can clean your car and windshield
William,
Delete"There is a difference between a physical "law" such as gravity that can be tested extensively to conclude that solid objects will always fall to earth, and extrapolating from intelligently made human codes to conclude that DNA is intelligently made."
I am aware no analogy is perfect, but my point still stands. You have no examples of codes which have come into being from a non-intelligent source. In fact, it would be impossible to even create a scenario in which this could occur.
On the other hand, you have many examples of codes which have come about via intelligence.
Therefore, it is completely valid to conclude codes arise as a result of intelligence, whereas you have no valid reason to argue they can arise from a non-intelligent source.
So, yes, it is completely valid to extrapolate that the DNA code is intelligently designed. To conclude otherwise would be totally out of line with all observable, demonstrable and repeatable evidence and as such, completely unscientific.
"No, the next question we have to ask is whether the "code" we see in DNA is analogous to we human codes."
We may have an answer to that question very soon as a result of the growing research into the concept of using a DNA type data storage system to replace silicone chips.
My initial response would be that they are analogous due to the fact we have come to understand some of the functioning of DNA. We are a long way from total understanding to be sure, but we know a lot more than we did 50 years ago.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
DeletePM: "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
DeleteOr Joe.
Ducks are smart enough to be able to tell ice from water. William, not so much
DeleteJoke: "Ducks are smart enough to be able to tell ice from water."
DeleteBut Joe? Not so much.
LoL! Unlike wee wiilie the lying puke I can tell a solid from a liquid- as can ducks. wee willie already said ice and water are the same. Ducks know they are not. Joe knows they are not.
Deletewee willie is a lying coward. It needs to distraction because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that the genetic code is a real code and he can't say anything about that
Joke: "LoL! Unlike wee wiilie the lying puke I can tell a solid from a liquid- as can ducks. wee willie already said ice and water are the same. Ducks know they are not. Joe knows they are not.
Deletewee willie is a lying coward. It needs to distraction because of the overwhelming scientific evidence that the genetic code is a real code and he can't say anything about that."
Always picked last on the debating teams, weren't you.
Is H2O a code?
LoL! wee willie wasn't even allowed on debating teams.
DeleteIs H2O a code?
H2O is the symbol for the chemical formula of a water molecule. So yes, writing H2O is a code for a water molecule.
Joke: "H2O is the symbol for the chemical formula of a water molecule. So yes, writing H2O is a code for a water molecule."
DeleteI was talking about the molecule itself, not the symbol.
The molecule is not a code. It doesn't fit the definition.
DeleteJoke: "The molecule is not a code. It doesn't fit the definition."
DeleteReally? So the fact that it crystallized at zero C is just magic? Or is their a built in molecular code?
Wee Willie, I linked to the Wikipedia entry on codes. You should have read it as it would have been your total education on the topic.
DeleteThe fact that liquid water crystalizes at zero C proves there isn't any symbolic communication. mRNA codons do NOT become the amino acids they REPRESENT them. The dots and dashes of Morse REPESENT letters. They do not transform into them.
Also it takes 275 molecules of H2O to form a simple ice crystal. It is a physical property of H2O and not arbitrary. Not magic and not a molecular code, whatever that is.
But your desperation has opened up your imagination. Too bad your imagination isn't evidence.
Joke: "Also it takes 275 molecules of H2O to form a simple ice crystal. It is a physical property of H2O and not arbitrary. Not magic and not a molecular code, whatever that is."
DeleteReally? Why not? Why isn't the arrangement of the atoms in a water molecule not a code? Why isn't DNA a molecular code? They both act according to chemical "laws".
wee willie:
DeleteSo the fact that it crystallized at zero C is just magic?
The magic of physics. Well physics is magic to the uneducated
Joke: "The magic of physics. Well physics is magic to the uneducated."
DeleteAs is protein synthesis.
Why isn't the arrangement of the atoms in a water molecule not a code?
DeleteIt doesn't fit any definition of the word. Read the Wikipedia article on codes. That will be your entire education on the topic. It will also explain why you are totally wrong. Codes involve symbols- where are the symbols? What is being communicated?
Why isn't DNA a molecular code?
Umm DNA is part of the genetic code. And no the genetic code is not governed by chemical laws. Haven't you been paying attention? Codes are arbitrary and not determined by any laws. There isn't any chemical determination as to what mRNA codon represents which amino acid.
This has been explained to you many, many times.
wee willie:
DeleteAs is protein synthesis.
Wrong again. You haven't been reading what I have been posting. Either that or it was way above your pointed little head.
The one thing codes have in common is they are arbitrary meaning not reducible to any laws of chemistry and physics. The genetic code isn't an exception. There aren't any laws of physics and chemistry that can account for the genetic code. Just because the genetic code involves chemicals doesn't mean it is reducible to them.
Joke: "There isn't any chemical determination as to what mRNA codon represents which amino acid."
DeleteCitation please.
"Codes involve symbols- where are the symbols?"
Where are the symbols with regard to protein synthesis? Codons? Codon is just a word that humans coined for three nucleotides that fit well (chemically) with a specific amino acid. Not a code. Chemistry.
Citation please
DeleteEvery paper written on it. Every textbook rendering of it.
Where are the symbols with regard to protein synthesis?
Again- the mRNA codons REPRESENT, they do NOT become, the amino acids. That means the codons are the symbols as that is what the freaking word means. The codons do NOT fit well with the amino acids. There isn't any physical connection. The amino acids are connected to a tRNA and the connecting end of the tRNA is the same in all of them. The part of the tRNA that couples with the mRNA is downstream from the connected amino acid.
There isn't any chemical fit between mRNA and amino acids.
Every resource there is says the genetic code is a real code and there isn't any chemical fit between nucleotides and amino acids. Only someone totally ignorant of the genetic code would say such a thing.
Google is your friend, use it
Ghostrider,
ReplyDeleteSorry, I replied to your comment addressing you as William. Though that is not insulting in itself as William is a nice guy, I should pay more attention to the name when I reply.
"Fortunately evolution is a fact..."
ReplyDeleteI always thought evolution was a bank, with all the promissory notes evolutionists deliver...
Evolution is a self fullfilling prophecy
ReplyDelete