Monday, March 5, 2012

Evolution Breakthrough: Enzymes Evolved “Very Early” in the Evolution of Life

After a massive study of the evolution of enzymes—which as usual was really nothing more than a comparison of enzymes, with precisely zero explanation of how the amazing protein machines actually are supposed to have arisen all by themselves as evolutionists insist must be true—the evolutionists did what evolutionists always do, sweep the problem under the proverbial origin-of-life rug:

Although, of course, new enzymes must have evolved at some stage, probably very early in the evolution of life.

Yes, very, very early, because, after all, we have no idea how it could have happened. In the beginning, everything that is important somehow rapidly evolved by lateral evolution between interacting communities. From there the rest, as they say, is history. The details are left up to the student.

43 comments:

  1. That's quite an argument you have there, with the exception that it's blatantly false - you've already been provided an explanation over and over again.

    We explain the knowledge of how to build enzymes, as found in the genome, as being created by a form of conjecture and refutation.

    On the other hand, why don't you enlighten us with your explanation for this knowledge?

    CH: In the beginning, everything that is important somehow rapidly evolved by lateral evolution between interacting communities. From there the rest, as they say, is history. The details are left up to the student.

    In the beginning, all of this important knowledge just "just was", along with some purposeful designer which, by some unexplainable means, didn't need a purpose giver.

    But this merely sweeps the problem into some unexplainable realm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where did the "one or several forms," that Darwin spoke about, come from? Who was the Creator he invoked?

    ReplyDelete
  3. CH - Evolution is the only game in town. Until you have an alternative which is anywhere near the same league of explanatory value as ToE, then do not complain that scientists take it as red.

    ToE is, simply, the only theory on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "ToE is, simply, the only theory on the table." - this truly says it all. No matter how ridiculous it gets, the materialists have to hold on to their myth because they have nothing else, within their worldview, to hold on to. This is why I am afraid that science will never progress to ditch this prehistoric theory. Human weakness might always hold us back

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Temi - You are mistaken. The assumption of materialism is absolutely essential for doing any science whatsoever.

      Without assuming materialism, there is no science. It is as simple as that.

      And science WORKS. It is the only means of acquiring knowledge we have ever come up with which is both accurate and productive. It is positively prolific.

      Religion, by contrast, has never increased the sum of human knowledge one iota. The words on a page don't change. While science (read 'materialism') is constantly discovering and improving on itself, there is absolutely no progress, no increase in knowledge, in religion.

      This can easily be demonstrated in the ToE v ID 'debate'. ToE is testable, falsifiable, demonstrable, observable and a fertile ground for new ideas and theories. ID, by contrast, explains nothing, is unfalsifiable, unobservable, and totally sterile in terms of future research.

      There is simply no contest here.

      Delete
  5. Ritchie said

    "ToE is, simply, the only theory on the table."

    That do not make it a fact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evolution is a fact:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

      Delete
    2. talkorigins link. lol. Didn't take long for that to pop up.

      you said "The assumption of materialism is absolutely essential for doing any science whatsoever."

      Not quite. Objective assessment of evidence is essential to science. An unshaking worldview is simply a burden on competent scientific endeavor.

      Delete
    3. Temi -

      talkorigins link. lol. Didn't take long for that to pop up.

      I could have linked to numerous other web pages explaining exactly the same point.

      Not quite. Objective assessment of evidence is essential to science. An unshaking worldview is simply a burden on competent scientific endeavor.

      No, my original statement was correct.

      If a scientist assumes naturalism then every observation, the result of every experiment, is a demonstration of the regular laws that govern the world. Want to know what happens to object A under condition X? You can do an experiment and see.

      However, if a scientist does NOT assume naturalism, then any observation, the result of any experiment, does not need to have been brought about by any natural laws. It could have been magic. Or a miracle.

      In this case, if you want to know what happens to object A under condition X you are powerless. If you perform such an experiment, then you cannot be sure that a miracle (or invisible fairies, or whatever) did not interfere with the experiment. Performing the experiment DOES NOT TELL YOU what happens to object A under condition X.

      Say I want to know whether red objects fall faster than blue objects. If I assume naturalism then I can perform the experiment. I can take two otherwise identical objects - one red and one blue - and drop them and see if one falls faster. But if I do not assume naturalism, then I cannot trust my results. God might have interfered. I might have in fact just witnessed a miracle.

      In short, if you do not assume naturalism, you cannot trust any observations, any data, the results of any experiments, to accurately demonstrate the laws which are at work in the world. And if you cannot trust your own results then science is utterly impossible.

      Delete
    4. Really Ritchie, you are wrong. The unfortunate thing is that people who hold your view cannot seem to see where they are wrong. You cannot simply assume that all explanations are natural. That is not a scientific position to take. What you should really say, since you know its what you are advocating, is that no matter what we see, no matter how much the natural world points beyond itself, we must always find some explanation that is natural. Regardless of how silly that explanation is. That is really what you want, isn't it?

      Do you not see how one could be justified, at least in some situation, to assume the supernatural? If you do not, then you are simply holding fast to a worldview that states that no such thing exists or could possibly exist. Can't help you there.

      PS: your logic is broken. This is typical of people who hold to your worldview. It's really amazing how illogical evolutionists and atheists can get, but its sad because I know you believe what you are saying completely. You should just take into consideration the fact that some of the greatest contributors to progress, were theists. Theism affords us the ability to study the laws of nature, but does not predispose us to illogical ideas that do not fit the logical construct set out by the creator. We do not see design and assume natural causes, whilst your world view forces you to see only one side of the coin. Basically, theism = full spectrum, atheism = limited to a lacking view of the world.

      Delete
    5. Temi -

      You cannot simply assume that all explanations are natural. That is not a scientific position to take.

      Yes we can. And yes it is a totally scientific position to take.

      http://www.ebonmusings.org/evolution/naturalism.html

      Have a read and try to understand why assuming naturalism is UTTERLY ESSENTIAL for performing science.

      What you should really say, since you know its what you are advocating, is that no matter what we see, no matter how much the natural world points beyond itself, we must always find some explanation that is natural. Regardless of how silly that explanation is. That is really what you want, isn't it?

      Besides the groundless judement calls that the natural world points beyond itself and that naturalistic explanations are 'silly', yes, science does indeed limit itself exclusively to naturalistic explanations. If you have an explanation which is not entirely naturalistic then it is not scientific. Simple as that. Disagree with that and you disagree with science - all of science. Every branch in every field of biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering, etc...

      But this is not a flaw or a restriction - it is a strength. It ensures every claim, every theory in science is repeatable, demonstrable and verifiable. This is exactly how we know science works - we can PROVE it.

      Do you not see how one could be justified, at least in some situation, to assume the supernatural?

      Not scientifically you couldn't, no. That is not to say the supernatural does not exist, of course, but it is to say that science is powerless to study it. Science is indeed limited to the real, natural world. Science cannot say anything about, or even verify the existence of, a supernatural realm. That is entirely the province of theology/philosophy.

      PS: your logic is broken.

      You say that, but you have not shown me HOW. You have just declared me wrong. If I am wrong explain to me where my logic fails.

      I want to test the theory that red objects fall faster than blue ones. So I get a red ball and a blue ball, otherwise identical, and hook them up to lots of machinery to drop them at precise times and measure their speed of falling. I can then get the results and see if red objects do indeed fall faster than blue ones or not.

      But if I am to abandon naturalism, if I am to assume miracles do indeed happen, how am I to trust my results? How can I exclude the possibility that a miracle happened to interfere with my results?

      Please explain that to me in detail. I have posed this question many times to people who, like you, insist science should be able to encompass the supernatural (Cornelius included) and no-one has ever been able to give me an answer. Why? Because it is in fact you who are in the wrong.

      Delete
    6. "If you have an explanation which is not entirely naturalistic then it is not scientific. Simple as that. Disagree with that and you disagree with science - all of science. Every branch in every field of biology, physics, chemistry, medicine, engineering, etc... "?

      who are you? You sound like some cultist with statements like that. It's sad that this is typically seen among supporters of evolution. You don't even think twice about how retarded what you just said is. Science should NEVER be corrupted in such a manner. Freedom to explore all possibilities is paramount and I hate to say it, but people who hold your view on this are likely to destroy all the progress theists have brought to science and humanity as a whole.

      anyway, Science can study the natural only (as we know), sure. But that was not my point. Science through the natural can infer the influence of the supernatural is what I was saying. You’d have to assert that the supernatural, if it existed, could never influence the natural world in order for your statement of naturalism to have relevance. It’s clear as day to most ID supporters the possibly influence of the supernatural on the natural. You see ID and immediately get defensive, when an unbiased scientist would simply take it as another possibility, a very obvious possibility. The real problem is the theological implication of accepting the possibility of a power that had influence in the construction of what we observe. That is what causes the negative primitive reaction and the immediate scrambling for silly rebuttals.

      You’d do well not to post links from sources biased towards your position, when the information is about interpretation and opinion. Your link is by someone who is opposed to “Creationist” and intelligent design and he chooses to limit science to a worldview rather than to objectively following evidence and research. It’s getting annoying that materialists are doing this, but really… expected. If I were to start saying what I really think about how you guys think I’d probably be a bit out of line. It’s really just silly and it is a corruption of the purity that was science. When you start bringing ideology and dogma into it, start prosecuting those who oppose it. Science is becoming a religion thanks to the irreligious.


      Just to be clear, they do not say science should encompass the supernatural. You simply lack the understanding to go beyond your worldview limitations and see what they are saying. A lot of our world understanding is based on inference. You cannot study thoughts empirically, but you do infer intentions and human design/actions. We cannot see the extremely small but we do infer it's existence. What is being said is that science should not be artificially prevented from inferring the supernatural. The ONLY reason that would be done is to satisfy a materialist world view. It serves no other purpose. Your examples of red objects etc is broken. There are always possibilities in science. WE simply accept the most likely explanation. For what you say to be true, theists who accept the supernatural can influence the natural, should not be able to do science.

      Delete
    7. Temi -

      Science should NEVER be corrupted in such a manner. Freedom to explore all possibilities is paramount and I hate to say it, but people who hold your view on this are likely to destroy all the progress theists have brought to science and humanity as a whole.

      Oh please. Don't be such a melodramatic drama queen.

      Science is totally limited to the natural world. Full stop. That's a fact, pure and siumple. Get over it. If you do not understand this extremely basic point then you do not understand science.

      Science through the natural can infer the influence of the supernatural is what I was saying.

      No it can't.

      It can't infer the supernatural. It can't speak to the supernatural. It can't in any way verify, falsify, or suggest any properties of, the supernatural. As far as science is concerned, the supernatural is absolutely out of bounds.

      The real problem is the theological implication of accepting the possibility of a power that had influence in the construction of what we observe. That is what causes the negative primitive reaction and the immediate scrambling for silly rebuttals.

      No, the 'real problem' is silly Creationists trying to smuggle the assumption of God into science and try to make out that it is a perfectly legitimate proposition. It is not. The supernatural has no place in science. God is not permitted inside the lab. I don't know how I can speak any plainer.

      What is being said is that science should not be artificially prevented from inferring the supernatural.

      But it is. By it's very nature it cannot draw any inferences at all from the supernatural.

      Science cannot study the supernatural, it cannot draw inferences about the supernatural, it cannot make assumptions about the supernatural, it cannot invoke the supernatural - it just cannot say anything at all about the supernatural.

      Get used to it.

      I also notice you totally failed to offer any sort of reply to my red ball/blue ball conundrum. I am not in the least bit surprised. Perhaos when you've calmed down a little you'll reflect on how it perfectly illustrates how you are wrong.

      Delete
    8. The inferences are not from the supernatural, but the natural. WHY is it so hard for you to understand this stuff? You keep repeating the same foolishness even after I have told you more than once. You even quote something I said and then continue saying the wrong thing.

      Yes I did reply to your "conundrum". It illustrates nothing but your lack of finesse in thought. I don't know why i bother. Your materialism dictates your logic which then turns around validates your materialism to you. it's really not healthy to try talking sense into someone like that.

      Just in case, how old are you?

      Delete
    9. Temi -

      The inferences are not from the supernatural, but the natural.

      But the inferences are ABOUT the supernatural. And science cannot draw any inferences ABOUT any such thing.

      On the topic of the supernatural, science is absolutely mute. Grasp this, or the entire concept of science will forever be beyond you.

      Yes I did reply to your "conundrum".

      No, you really didn't.

      Once again, my question was, 'How can I be sure a miracle has not occurred to interfere with my experiment?'

      An answer would either begin 'You can be sure because...' or (and this is the answer you are clearly desperately trying to steer away from) 'You cannot. Which makes your results totally untrustworthy, and science impossible'. Those really are your options I'm afraid. You haven't yet given me either and until you have, you cannot truthfully claim to have answered my question.

      Just in case, how old are you?

      I am thirty. Why, how old are you?

      Delete
    10. Guess I have to make it easy for you.

      1. assume there is a supernatural
      2. Assume that an entity from this supernatural plane just decides to, I dunno, create organic machines from scratch.


      The above 2 are FACTS in this example and possibilities in reality.

      3. Say a scientist then tries to figure the origins of these organic machines.

      What are his options and is or isn't science a proper tool to figure out the origins of the machines? I hope the first 2 assumptions draw you out of your worldview.

      Another thing you could do is assume that the inference to design is not supernatural at all. Some of your buddies like to suggest aliens now and then.

      You can not be sure a miracle did not occur but, as I clearly have said, you look for the best explanation given the evidence. All the evidence may point to something, but the possibility is always there that you are wrong.

      I wish someone else would chime in. I see serious problems with the way you think that I can't or can't bother detailing for you. You are saying ditch everything because we might be wrong, basically. Just by allowing our minds to consider more possibilities. The reality of this situation is also not even close to your example, but that would be hard to explain to you.

      I asked because you might be senile or too young to think. Would have regretted wasting my time.

      Delete
    11. Temi -

      What are his options and is or isn't science a proper tool to figure out the origins of the machines?

      Well in this case, no. If life was created by a supernatural being via supernatural means then science would never be able to establish that.

      Because, (and I don't know if I've mentioned it, but) science cannot infer the supernatural.

      Said scientist would forever be searching for the answers to the origin of life but never be able to hit upon the answer. Because the answer is supernatural. And science is restricted exclusively to the natural world.

      Another thing you could do is assume that the inference to design is not supernatural at all. Some of your buddies like to suggest aliens now and then.

      Some of 'MY' buddies? I thought that suggestion was made by ID-ers who want to pretend ID is not just Creationism in a cheap tuxedo...

      In any case, while that answer is not supernatural per se, it still has its problems. The lack of candidates for such creator aliens is one. As is the truly mind-numbing distances of space such beings would have to cross to, what, seed life on Earth for a laugh and then naff off again?

      You can not be sure a miracle did not occur...

      Thank you. And thus, science is impossible. Why can't you see that?

      I cannot draw any conclusions about whether red objects fall faster than blues ones. My experiment is useless and I have no way of exploring this question. Allowing for the possibility of miracles has hamstrung any progress or discoveries I could have made.

      ...but, as I clearly have said, you look for the best explanation given the evidence. All the evidence may point to something, but the possibility is always there that you are wrong.

      All of which is true. But no evidence will EVER point to a supernatural explanation. That's kinda the whole point. The supernatural obeys no laws, is untestable, and leaves no evidence. If it did, then it would not be supernatural - it would be natural.

      And though I can't PROVE the supernatural doesn't exist, it is an assumption one simply HAS to make in order to perform science. Yes it is an assumption and yes it might be incorrect, but look how productive science is. It is single-handedly responsible for all our greatest achievements in knowledge, civilisation, technology, medicine, and much more besides. We have walked on the moon, performed heart transplants, decoded the human genome, glimpsed the bottom of the ocean, built cars, space satellites, the internet... the list goes on and on. Science WORKS. That is its trump card. And ALL of it is built on the assumption of naturalism. If science was so fundamentally flawed, there would be no reason for anything it has produced to work.

      ANY field which assumes a supernatural, by contast, such as religion, divination, fortune-telling, aura-reading, etc., has a consistent track-record of being utterly non-productive.

      Funny that...

      You are saying ditch everything because we might be wrong, basically.

      I am not saying anything of the sort. I am saying scientists cannot just cry 'miracle' whenever we hit upon a mystery. Allowing for the possibility of the supernatural would make science totally impossible because we could no longer trust that the results of our own experiments accurately reflected reality. We could make up absolutely any theory we liked and dismissed any counter-evidence as anomalous miracles or magical events. That is not the scientific way of going about doing things.

      Delete
    12. How do theists do science?

      you keep saying science cannot infer the supernatural. Of course this is a change from what you were saying before, that science cannot study the supernatural. I guess you realized what I was saying after all, but you still feel you can assert your position by shifting it to infer, which you cannot. Science can most definitely infer the supernatural, otherwise it is impotent. Sure, maybe your science can not, due to your own artificially placed limitations. But real scientists should be able to follow the evidence where it leads.

      Funny enough, your example can be killed easily by inputting natural intervention. A scientist knows that his peers can interfere with his results. One of his lab techs could forge results, screw up calibration of instruments, etc. His findings could easily be due to the action of some intelligent agent WITHIN our natural world, so why doesn't he just assume that someone interfered every time? Science is impossibly now, right? Let's all get our butts back to the caves.

      Delete
    13. Temi -

      How do theists do science?

      Science does not forbid its practitioners from believing in God. But it does forbid scientists from invoking such a being in their work. Theists are free to assume that God works through natural, not miraculous, means, if they wish, or that miracles are possible in principle but definitely did not bring about whatever it is that they are studying, if it makes them happy.

      Not even theist scientists can invoke a God or supernatural in their science.

      you keep saying science cannot infer the supernatural. Of course this is a change from what you were saying before, that science cannot study the supernatural.

      They are the same thing - or, at least, both are true. Science cannot invoke, infer, study or hypothesise a supernatural. The supernatural is just off-bounds to scientists. Period. As far as science is concerned, the world is governed by laws which are entirely natural and regular, and nothing more.

      Science can most definitely infer the supernatural, otherwise it is impotent.

      How?!?! How in Hades can it achieve that? How can we POSSIBLY scientifically infer the supernatural?

      And I want you to be really, really detailed here. Be REALLY specific. I don't care if you end up writing 10,000 words here, I'll gladly read every one of them with the keenest interest. Give me the really, really, really long version. Don't be shy. This is your chance to really put me in my place. Lay it out in black and white for everyone to see in great and graphic detail.

      How can we POSSIBLY tell the difference between a mystery with a supernatural explanation, and one with a natural but as yet undiscovered explanation?

      And, if you can, lots and lots of examples of when ANYONE has EVER actually DONE so in the past would be great, thanks.

      Sure, maybe your science can not

      Yes, that would be 'science as practiced by every scientist worth his salt since the Enlightenment...'

      His findings could easily be due to the action of some intelligent agent WITHIN our natural world, so why doesn't he just assume that someone interfered every time? Science is impossibly now, right?

      No, not impossible.

      Of course there is the possibility of interference. That is why practically every experiment is repeated over and over again. In the case of the red v blue ball, I would not just drop them once, I would drop them many times to see if I get a consistent result. Then, when I publish my results, it would have to go through the process of peer review, which is when several of my peers do my experiment themselves and see if their results agree with mine. All this is done to minimise the risk of outside interference or some random variable affecting the results. Then and only then do I get to publish in a scientific journal.

      If some entirely natural influence is affecting my experiment then it would, at least in principle, be perfectly possible to detect, identify and account for it. This would simply be utterly impossible if such an influence came from a supernatural source.

      Delete
    14. "In the case of the red v blue ball, I would not just drop them once, I would drop them many times to see if I get a consistent result."

      gj. Now we know how to rule out interfering factors. How does this not apply to excluding supernatural action?

      "If some entirely natural influence is affecting my experiment then it would, at least in principle, be perfectly possible to detect, identify and account for it. This would simply be utterly impossible if such an influence came from a supernatural source."

      It would not always be possible to detect and account for. You also don't seem to realize what you are detecting. Supernatural action is not some "nothing" that acts on the natural. The things you would clue you in to natural action are the very same things that would be used to detect supernatural action. BOTH are acting on the natural in detectable ways. In your red ball vs blue ball foolishness, imagine that one of your colleagues secretly increased the weight of one of the balls significantly enough to fall faster than the other, then suppose a supernatural agent did the same, how would you detect the difference?

      "Yes, that would be 'science as practiced by every scientist worth his salt since the Enlightenment...'"

      why do you say things like that? I mean, it does not take even a small child to know that that is false. So why do you keep saying things like that? I mean... Einstein was borderline theist, certainly not an atheist. Newton was a "creationist". I don't even know what could possess you to hold that ridiculous view. It'd be hard for you to find one scientist that contributed to science as prominently as the theists in history, that held to a naturalist view. Yet somehow they should not be able to do science, because you are a materialist?

      Delete
    15. Temi,

      Let's us a puzzle as an analogy for explaining phenomena.

      The role of science is to figure out where specific pieces, with their specific shapes and faces, interlock with other parts reality. In other words, we explain our ability to make progress in that reality consist of long chains of hard to vary pieces that belong in specific locations and connect to each other.

      However, you're suggesting that, in addition to these specific pieces with specific shapes and faces, there is a different kind of puzzle piece that can take any shape and display anything on it's face. In other words, it can take the form and image from one to any number of pieces, which would allow it to take fill any space and interlock with any number of neighboring pieces.

      Here's an illustration that outlines the above.

      However, given that this special kind of piece can take any shape and display any image, this means that reality could look like this, this, or even this.

      That is, once we admit this special sort of puzzle piece, there is no need for any particular ratio of specific pieces with fixed sizes and faces, compared to this special type of piece that can take any shape, size or image.

      Any particular ratio is would not be necessary, but arbitrary.

      So, the question becomes, couldn't everything be represented by this special type of puzzle piece? What about just one normal puzzle piece, with the rest being this special sort of piece? Why is there this particular ratio of puzzle piece types, rather than some other ratio?

      Or, from another perspective, why would a designer decide to use special type of piece for some things, but use pieces with specific shapes, sizes and images type of piece everywhere else?

      Furthermore, if any particular phenomena need not be represented by pieces with specific shapes, sizes and images, how would we know they they do or do not fit together?

      For example, when assembling an actual puzzle, we guess if a piece should go at a particular location, but test to see if it actually fits by comparing it to the shape of its neighbors. Each piece represents a hard to vary part of the entire puzzle However, if pieces didn't need to fit with other pieces, how can we test to see if our guess is correct?

      In other words, it's unclear how we could know anything in particular is responsible for anything in particular should we admit the supernatural into the mix.

      Delete
    16. Temi -

      In your red ball vs blue ball foolishness, imagine that one of your colleagues secretly increased the weight of one of the balls significantly enough to fall faster than the other, then suppose a supernatural agent did the same, how would you detect the difference?

      Well because if an unaccounted for natural force was influencing my experiment, it would be unlikely that the same force was influencing the repeat experiments my colleagues did to test my results. In the example of the sabotaging assistant, would we ALL have sabotaging assistants? Such a thing is possible and we cannot rule it out - all scientific facts are provisional after all - but it is certainly less likely to have occurred in all experiments for all experimenters.

      However, no such restrictions apply to the supernatural. ANYTHING can be a miracle, practically by definition. There is no limit to the number of times a miracle can occur.

      A natural interference might affect my experiments. But it is less likely to affect the experiments of both me and a person repeating my experiments. And less likely still to affect a third person still. The more times an experiment is repeated with constant results, the more confidence we can have in those results.

      But there is just as much chance as having one miracle as having a thousand. Two miracles is not less likely than one. So the chances of a miracle affecting my results do not diminish on repetition.

      I mean... Einstein was borderline theist, certainly not an atheist. Newton was a "creationist".

      But neither inserted their religious beliefs into their science! Neither of them attributed any observed occurrence to a miracle. Because, obviously, you can't if you're performing science.

      Finally I have to repeat my request. I begged you, pleaded with you to explain precisely HOW science can infer the supernatural. And you ignored me. I'm going to try again in the hopes that embarrassment will shame you into either having a stab at it or realising you are wrong.

      HOW can science infer the supernatural?! How can it tell the difference between an observation with a supernatural cause and an observation with a natural but as-yet undiscovered cause?

      Because the obvious answer looming over this question like a spectre is "It can't."

      Delete
    17. Just to be sure, what is science to you guys?

      Delete
    18. Including what you think it's role should be.

      Your argument is going to be one for the absence of the supernatural altogether, depending on your answer. BTW, I have been saying you are atheist etc, but what are you 2? Are you aware of how your worldview might be affecting your arguments and sure they are valid?

      Delete
    19. Temi -

      Just to be sure, what is science to you guys?

      Well I don't know who you are referring to as 'you guys', but I can only really speak for myself.

      Science is a means of investigating the world around us. Specifically it is investigation via the application of the scientific method.

      First, you start with some data. Then you form a tentative hypothesis which could potentially explain the data. Then you devise experiments to test your hypothesis. If your test fails, you must modify your hypothesis to fit the new data, or abandon it completely. Only if it passes your tests do you submit your results for other people to test. And if they come back with the same result, then you can publish, and your hypothesis becomes a theory.

      That is how science is done. It is based on evidence - on data. That is what science is all about. Kick away the ability to trust your data (which you certainly would if you supposed there was a God who made miracles happen willy-nilly) and you cannot do science.

      Including what you think it's role should be.

      It's role should be to discover things about the universe. How it works. Science is a tool for investigation - for establishing facts about the world around us. We wield it as a craftsman would wield an instrument.

      BTW, I have been saying you are atheist etc, but what are you 2?

      I am indeed an atheist.

      Are you aware of how your worldview might be affecting your arguments and sure they are valid?

      I really don't see how. Anyone can be a scientist; Atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Christian... Religion really doesn't matter here - unless of course you want to try to insert your religion INTO science, which is exactly what the ID Creationists are trying to do. They are crying out just because the Theory of Evolution explains life on Earth without need to invoke a creator/designer God. Their little creation myth has turned out to not be scientific fact and they are having a tantrum about it. That is not to say that no such God exists... but that's still not good enough for the Creationists. They want science to be able to infer the existence of their God and to show the miracles they believe in really happened, which is simply beyond science's ability to do.

      And you STILL have not attempted to suggest how science can infer the supernatural. Should I take that as an implicit admission that it cannot after all?

      Delete
    20. Ok. What if the reality of our world is that there is a God that can perform miracles in it? What if parts of the natural world were indeed created by this God and it was seen that it was only possible that they were.

      Do you think

      1. scientists should ignore this fact if their findings suggest it, in order to preserve the mindset you think is necessary for science

      or 2. accept this fact if their findings suggest it and continue as they were?

      I'm hoping you don't go back to the false "science cannot infer the supernatural" crap. Sigh, this is probably hopeless. I'll just hope that people start thinking differently eventually. I'll just end with this.

      Your idea of science is biased to your worldview. Maybe somewhere in the back of your mind you see that, maybe you don't. Trying to talk sense to an atheist is pretty hard. Science cannot operate with limitations like that. You go beyond objectivity and evidence to impose a barrier on what knowledge can be searched for. That is just not right. But... it can't be helped. Your beliefs require such claims.

      Delete
    21. Temi,

      I'm a critical rationalist.

      As such, I think we create knowledge by conjecturing theories about how things *are*, in reality, then testing those theories via observations.

      So, I'm not claiming to know the supernatural doesn't exist. Rather, in the spirt of this approach, I've assumed that the supernatural does exist, then criticized it in my above comment. Specifically, in regards to the impact it would have on our ability to make progress.

      Again, if the supernatural can explain any observations (or take any shape in my puzzle analogy) then how is that we we can make any progress?

      In other words, how do *you* explain our ability to make progress? How does it work, assuming the supernatural does actually exist?

      Do we make progress because, "that's just what God must have wanted"?

      Delete
    22. Temi -

      What if the reality of our world is that there is a God that can perform miracles in it? What if parts of the natural world were indeed created by this God and it was seen that it was only possible that they were.

      If that is indeed the case then the phenomena which miracles have brought about will forever be mysteries to the scientist.

      I notice both the options you gave me hinged on the phrase '...if their findings suggest it' which is more than a little frustrating because their finding s will never suggest it. No evidence will ever suggest a supernatural force. That's one of the big problems with the supernatural.

      I'm hoping you don't go back to the false "science cannot infer the supernatural" crap.

      Why on Earth not? I have now asked you no less than three times to support your claim that 'science can infer the supernatural', and you have conspicuously and unsurprisingly ignored me every single time. Because you can't support this claim. Because it is absolutely false. Science cannot infer the supernatural. It is impossible. Can't be done. No chance. Not going to happen. Ever.

      Your idea of science is biased to your worldview.

      How? When 'my idea of science' is able to be utilised by people of different worldviews. I am an atheist. But that doesn't matter. A Jew can use science, as I have described it, as can a Muslim, A Sikh, a Taoist, an Agnostic, or a person of any faith whatsoever.

      Delete
    23. "No evidence will ever suggest a supernatural force. That's one of the big problems with the supernatural."

      You are right about this. In your worldview, no evidence will ever suggest the supernatural.

      "I have now asked you no less than three times to support your claim that 'science can infer the supernatural', and you have conspicuously and unsurprisingly ignored me every single time."

      I ignored it? Can't remember. Either way, read the above. Nothing I say would register for you in that regard.

      "How? When 'my idea of science' is able to be utilised by people of different worldviews."

      People with different worldviews are not using your idea of science. Your idea of science is defective because it does not seek truth but limits the search artificially.

      your logic

      1. You have an idea of what science is
      2. people do science
      3. they must all be doing science by your idea.

      The one thing they are required to do as good scientists is follow the evidence and be objective.

      btw, almost all of what we've been talking about doesn't even represent the real situation. I'm done with you.

      @Scott, you're confused.

      Please note that this is not even about miracles. This is about origins. I guess I am also to blame for continuing with it, but we are talking about who/what set everything as it is. Not whether this entity changes things now. I guess it went there because it always goes there. You cannot talk about design without someone jumping to theology. I think I did mention that. The atheists always get scared and start talking about miracles whenever ID is mentioned.

      Delete
    24. Temi -

      Your idea of science is defective because it does not seek truth but limits the search artificially.

      your logic

      1. You have an idea of what science is
      2. people do science
      3. they must all be doing science by your idea.


      Fine. Then enlighten me.

      Give me YOUR version of science.

      What is science? How does it operate? How do we use it?

      And how could it possibly detect a supernatural force.

      You keep criticising 'my definition of science', but you are not suggesting an alternative.

      Again, as specific as you possibly can please...

      Delete
    25. I already did give you a pure way of approaching science. It's mostly what you say, EXCEPT that we should avoid limiting where it can take us and what it can tell us. A pure search for knowledge and truth, regardless of our biases.

      Delete
    26. Avoid limitng ourselves to natural explanations, you mean?

      Cannot be done. Impossible.

      Remember what I was telling you about evidence and experiments? Allow for the possibility of miracles and you have no reason to trust your data. It is pointless doing any experiments at all, since the world is not governed by regular laws. Is my red ball falling at the same speed as my blue ball because colour really doesn't affect the speed with which an object falls, or is it because a miracle is making that happen?

      Moreover, as many times as I have asked, HOW are we to infer the supernatural? You insist this can be done, and that the evidence could possibly 'point that way', but HOW?

      The mere fact that I have asked it SO MANY times and you have attempted no answer whatsoever makes me think you actually might recognise the fact that you are totally wrong on this as you have no answer for me, but you just don't want to say the words.

      Delete
    27. For the record, this guy is an atheist. What he posts might seem off, but its easier to understand when you take that into consideration. Still wrong, but you will understand why he says it. bye

      Delete
    28. Bye.

      Any time you feel like actually ADRESSING what I say, please feel free to return...

      Delete
  6. Ritchie said
    "Evolution is a fact"

    I thought it was a "provisional fact" for you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yes, very, very early, because, after all, we have no idea how it could have happened.

    Quite right. "We don't know" is a perfectly acceptable position n science. It's more honest than conjuring up some conveniently unspecified Creator to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

    In the beginning, everything that is important somehow rapidly evolved by lateral evolution between interacting communities. From there the rest, as they say, is history. The details are left up to the student.

    You have a better idea? Feel free to put it on the table.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Such terms like "enzyme evolution" and "chemical evolution pressure" sound very strange, because they go against the thermodynamic, which directs to the most stable molecules- CO2, H2O, N2, phosphate, sulphate,...
    The evolution of enzymes would require both aminoacids, substrates and all the chain to use their products. For example, the enzyme which is responsible by carbon fixation, needs ATP, Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate, magnesium 20 aminoacids, one carbamoylated lysine, and information for correct position of the groups in the active site.
    Perhaps, the ToE be the only theory for materialistic science. But, if evolution will be proven as wrong, it would be abandoned.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lazzarotto: Perhaps, the ToE be the only theory for materialistic science. But, if evolution will be proven as wrong, it would be abandoned.

    Precisely. No scientist is saying with 100% certainty that ToE can never be proven wrong. Science allows for this possibility. The evidence is currently strongly in favor, however.

    Whereas many IDers say with 100% certainty that their non-scientific viewpoint is correct, and nothing can sway them otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The evidence is against the theory. I don't think you understand fully what ToE is to these people. Consider what the alternative to a naturalistic process is (would have to be some form of ToE) and consider whether they are ready to accept that. Science cannot confirm God, in their minds. They will hold on no matter what, and the situation is such that they can always find some excuse to hold on to the theory. So much has come up against it, yet it is still here. Telling

      Delete
    2. No, there is no evidence against the theory. Evolution is one of the most well-attested theories in science. The evidence is ample and compelling for those who are willing to look - which basically consists of anyone not frothing at the mouth insisting a magic sky-daddy poofed everything into existence in seven days.

      Delete
  10. The coming of enzymes is mandatory. There are some essential points to life: boudaries, transport of nutrients through the boundaries, and catalysis. The latter is required to acchieve chemical potential between the inner and the outer phase, to result in work.
    Without catalysis we are on chemical equilibrium, where there is not work.
    But without the membrane there is not outer or inner, and the membrane are synthesized by proteins, or we suppose that linear chains are synthesized by try-and-error?
    Both catalysis, channels and membranes should be present. But, we do not see an explanation about this in chemistry and biochemistry books.

    ReplyDelete