Intelligent Design is a Load of Crap Part Deux

[Sauniere]

This article from the NY Times is very interesting and could have consequences for the rest of the country.

-snip-

DOVER, Pa., Sept. 23 - Sheree Hied, a mother of five who believes that God created the earth and its creatures, was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about "alternatives" to evolution, including the theory known as intelligent design.

But 11 other parents in Dover were outraged enough to sue the school board and the district, contending that intelligent design - the idea that living organisms are so inexplicably complex, the best explanation is that a higher being designed them - is a Trojan horse for religion in the public schools.

With the new political empowerment of religious conservatives, challenges to evolution are popping up with greater frequency in schools, courts and legislatures. But the Dover case, which begins Monday in Federal District Court in Harrisburg, is the first direct challenge to a school district that has tried to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

What happens here could influence communities across the country that are considering whether to teach intelligent design in the public schools, and the case, regardless of the verdict, could end up before the Supreme Court.

Dover, a rural, mostly blue-collar community of 22,000 that is 20 miles south of Harrisburg, had school board members willing to go to the mat over issue. But people here are well aware that they are only the excuse for a much larger showdown in the culture wars.

"It was just our school board making one small decision," Mrs. Hied said, "but it was just received with such an uproar."

For Mrs. Hied, a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company, the Dover school board's argument - that teaching intelligent design is a free-speech issue - has a strong appeal.

"I think we as Americans, regardless of our beliefs, should be able to freely access information, because people fought and died for our freedoms," Mrs. Hied said over a family dinner last week at their home, where the front door is decorated with a small bell and a plaque proclaiming, "Let Freedom Ring."

But in a split-level house on the other side of Main Street, at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the Internet late the other night, keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case. Mr. Stough, who teaches life science to seventh graders in a nearby district, is one of the 11 parents suing the Dover district. For him the notion of teaching "alternatives" to evolution is a hoax.

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?th&emc=th

[mataj]

ID is just a part of Bush's war on terrorism, pornography, drugs, and science.

[heel31ok]

This article from the NY Times is very interesting and could have consequences for the rest of the country.

-snip-

DOVER, Pa., Sept. 23 - Sheree Hied, a mother of five who believes that God created the earth and its creatures, was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about "alternatives" to evolution, including the theory known as intelligent design.

But 11 other parents in Dover were outraged enough to sue the school board and the district, contending that intelligent design - the idea that living organisms are so inexplicably complex, the best explanation is that a higher being designed them - is a Trojan horse for religion in the public schools.

With the new political empowerment of religious conservatives, challenges to evolution are popping up with greater frequency in schools, courts and legislatures. But the Dover case, which begins Monday in Federal District Court in Harrisburg, is the first direct challenge to a school district that has tried to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

What happens here could influence communities across the country that are considering whether to teach intelligent design in the public schools, and the case, regardless of the verdict, could end up before the Supreme Court.

Dover, a rural, mostly blue-collar community of 22,000 that is 20 miles south of Harrisburg, had school board members willing to go to the mat over issue. But people here are well aware that they are only the excuse for a much larger showdown in the culture wars.

"It was just our school board making one small decision," Mrs. Hied said, "but it was just received with such an uproar."

For Mrs. Hied, a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company, the Dover school board's argument - that teaching intelligent design is a free-speech issue - has a strong appeal.

"I think we as Americans, regardless of our beliefs, should be able to freely access information, because people fought and died for our freedoms," Mrs. Hied said over a family dinner last week at their home, where the front door is decorated with a small bell and a plaque proclaiming, "Let Freedom Ring."

But in a split-level house on the other side of Main Street, at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the Internet late the other night, keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case. Mr. Stough, who teaches life science to seventh graders in a nearby district, is one of the 11 parents suing the Dover district. For him the notion of teaching "alternatives" to evolution is a hoax.

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?th&emc=th
the last part is true,"...evolution is a hoax."

[Redratio1]

That's all you got? Larf! No wonder people mock ID-as-science defenders.

[heel31ok]

That's all you got? Larf! No wonder people mock ID-as-science defenders.
I am the wizard of ID, so larfter is the desired response.who are these "no wonder" people you speak of ? I am sure they have some wonder.Or maybe they don't and that is why they mock.

[Redratio1]

Give us all the scientific evidence that shows ID is a serious scientific theory.
Even an experiemnt.

[heel31ok]

Give us all the scientific evidence that shows ID is a serious scientific theory.
Even an experiemnt.
I do not believ in ID.

[Redratio1]

No evolution no ID then what?

[IDK]

the last part is true,"...evolution is a hoax."
Yeah, alright, some evidence, please?

[Scaryclouds]

Give scientific proof of how the universe was created.

[IDK]

Give scientific proof of how the universe was created.
Give scientific proof of how it was never created.

[heel31ok]

No evolution no ID then what?
God. Not ID which tries to leave His name out of it. Kinda lukewarm to me.

[heel31ok]

the last part is true,"...evolution is a hoax."
IDK there is no evidence. ;) hoax denotes a lack of evidence.

[Sauniere]

Geez, you naysayers to evolution have no proof, only "faith."

Scientists, evolutionary biologists, physicists have this whole thing figured out down to practically the very first second. As they proceed to THE one unified theory that will tie the universe together, when that happens you naysayers will still scoff because one can't disprove faith.

You deny scientific evidence and say everything is wrapped up into a nice tight little ball for you that God drops from nowhere into nowhere and creates the universe from nothing while he/she/it is where while all this is going on?

Geez, just try and make that defense in a court of law. You can't.
It only works in institutions of faith.

As such schools are not institutions for teaching religious faith, but for education, teaching the skills that will help people become productive members of society.

Leave the faith-based ideologies for your places of worship, your family, your home, whatever, just keep it out of the public schools.

That's all I've ever tried to get across with these two threads. Don’t force your Christian beliefs down everyone’s throats. ID is just an excuse for teaching creationism, everyone knows. You can put makeup on a pig but it’s going to look like a PIG.

[Michele]

For Mrs. Hied, a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company, the Dover school board's argument - that teaching intelligent design is a free-speech issue - has a strong appeal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/26/education/26evolution.html?th&emc=th

the argument that teaching intelligent design is a free speech issue is kind of pushing it. Genesis is not a matter of public speech. it is a matter of religion. the case still rests on separation of church and state not on free speech. you wish your child to learn intelligent design take him or her out of public school and put him or her in catholic or a private christian school.

IDK there is no evidence. ;) hoax denotes a lack of evidence.


to attempt to infuse a religious agenda into public school by redesigning genesis does pass as a hoax. to frame it as a free speech issues is definitely a hoax. It is hardly a free speech issue it is a religious issue which as religious curriculum goes can indeed be taught in private religious schools and catechisms.

to infuse religion into the public sector wherein all students are not christian, and with no scientific hypothesis but for faith, to attempt to challenge evolution, beyond being idiotic; is a violation of the separation of church and state. In order to prevail will require a redress of our constitution if not its devolution.

[mataj]

What are ID's empirically verifiable predictions?

IOW, how could ID eventually be disproven by observation or experiments?

If there is no answer to this, ID is not a scientific theory.

[Seth928]

Give scientific proof of how the universe was created.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Bang

I'm sure you will not be satisfied with this but then again I would like to see some scientific proof for (universal) creationism.

[Seth928]

IDK there is no evidence. ;) hoax denotes a lack of evidence.

Did you bother to look?

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

I would also like to point out ID's major lacking quality is that it can not explain the emrgence of new species. Especially the gradual emergence of new species.

[GI Joe]

ID=A pile of unadultered Garbage.

That is all anyone needs to know

[serenity]

ID=A pile of unadultered Garbage.

That is all anyone needs to know


Right, that's its main quality.

We all have more serious things to debate...why waste our time on this?

[IDK]

IDK there is no evidence. ;) hoax denotes a lack of evidence.
Then would that include a book full of unsupported stories? What the heck is a fossil to you, part of the hoax? What about specialized animal adaptation, carbob dating, the human tailbone, atavisms, and geological formations? Guess this is all evidence of the book, eh?

[Churlant]

Then would that include a book full of unsupported stories? What the heck is a fossil to you, part of the hoax? What about specialized animal adaptation, carbob dating, the human tailbone, atavisms, and geological formations? Guess this is all evidence of the book, eh?

Don't be ridiculous. God put fossils in the ground for us to find... duh.

-JC

[Kong]

Don't be ridiculous. God put fossils in the ground for us to find... duh.-JC I heard Satan put them there. Maybe its somewhere in the bible.

[heel31ok]

Then would that include a book full of unsupported stories? What the heck is a fossil to you, part of the hoax? What about specialized animal adaptation, carbob dating, the human tailbone, atavisms, and geological formations? Guess this is all evidence of the book, eh?
oh but that is not true, The origin of the species has lots of support.I do not believe in carbob dating, arranged marriages work better. A fossil is a nice watch. The human tailbone is the bone at the end of the tail. attaboys are more my style and I prefer a good power-I formation.

[heel31ok]

Don't be ridiculous. God put fossils in the ground for us to find... duh.

-JC
well that is true!

[Kong]

well that is true!Maybe, maybe not. Maybe our free will found them and God had nothing to do with it or maybe Satan put them there for us to find. Unless you can find something from the bible to confirm god put fossils on the ground for us to find I can not make a firm conclusion to the matter.

[heel31ok]

Did you bother to look?

http://www.txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolution/EVcontents.html

I would also like to point out ID's major lacking quality is that it can not explain the emrgence of new species. Especially the gradual emergence of new species.
I looked and saw the same old tired examples.Most of these examples have alredy been shown for what they really are. Misinformation and projecting desired preconceived results. Cooking the books of evolutionary proof.

On second thought it may be true because they have taken a horse and turned it into bull.It must be a coomon gene because most of it is bull across the board.
The scientific world is now in a state of change and uproar because so many inthe various diciplines are rejecting evolution as it is taught and portrayed and are looking for more valid explanations. This change is not driven by religion and the fanatics of Creation but by those scientist who have actually thought the proposed theories and evidence out and have concluded it to be lacking in real substance and support. This of course will lead to more theories because alot of them will still not accept a Creator as the originator. The evolution camp is in as much or more disarray than the poor Democratic party.

I guess it is true, it is the man on the street who is the last to know. It is like your Broker telling you he has a hot tip. Too late.It kinda reminds me of multi-level marketing where those at the bottom are still out there working the business while those at the top have cashed in moved on and started another "brand new thing".That is evolutions best job of creating new species!

[Duo_Maxwell]

On second thought it may be true because they have taken a horse and turned it into bull.

What are you talking about? Evolution does not state such blantant lies. Everytime a creationists runs his or her mouth off about how evolution is wrong but are talking about something completely different, I laugh. It's amusing but disturbing how bad science is taught or how so many reject it while hypocritically embracing it at the same time.


It must be a coomon gene because most of it is bull across the board.

Gibberish. Absolute gibberish. It's called a education Heel, get one.

The scientific world is now in a state of change and uproar because so many inthe various diciplines are rejecting evolution as it is taught and portrayed and are looking for more valid explanations.

Name one field. I bet you can't.

[Mr Pariah]

Give us all the scientific evidence that shows ID is a serious scientific theory.
Even an experiemnt.
*sigh*

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm)
Argument: ‘Irreducible complexity’ (https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp)
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp)
THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM: STILL SPINNING JUST FINE (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm)
Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm)
Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=465)
Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51)
Is Intelligent Design Testable? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm)
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm)
Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design (http://iscid.org/papers/Bracht_InventionsAlgorithms_112601.pdf)
The Evolution of the Human Eye (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/humaneye.html)
DNA and Other Designs (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm)
Design in living organisms (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/motors.asp)
Another Way to Detect Design? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm)
Biochemical Limits to Evolution (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html)
Evolving the Flagellum (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Flagellum.html)
DNA, Design and the Origin of Life (http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html)

Maybe doing your own research might help next time.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Michael J. Behe is a idiot. (you might want to review that entire article consider who wrote it, that guy makes Behe look intelligent)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Did you even read your links? The testable link is laughable. It doesn't evne talk about actually testing. It's almost entirely gibberish and it uses the retarded logic that if A is wrong B is right. Attacking Darwinism, which automatically proves it;s a creationist writer doesn't make ID correct at all.

The eye link boils down to a explnation of how the eye works and a statement that because it can't be explained now, Goddidit.

ID is in one sentence: if I can't explain it, Goddidit.
Stupid.

[Mr Pariah]

Michael J. Behe is a idiot.
That's rich coming from somebody who, if I recall, couldn't even grasp the basic concept of irreducible complexity from even a non-biological perspective.

[Tokyoman]

*sigh*

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm)
Argument: ‘Irreducible complexity’ (https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp)
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp)
THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM: STILL SPINNING JUST FINE (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm)
Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm)
Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=465)
Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51)
Is Intelligent Design Testable? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm)
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm)
Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design (http://iscid.org/papers/Bracht_InventionsAlgorithms_112601.pdf)
The Evolution of the Human Eye (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/humaneye.html)
DNA and Other Designs (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm)
Design in living organisms (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/motors.asp)
Another Way to Detect Design? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm)
Biochemical Limits to Evolution (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html)
Evolving the Flagellum (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Flagellum.html)
DNA, Design and the Origin of Life (http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html)

Maybe doing your own research might help next time.

All they do is try to pick holes in Darwin's theory. I didn't read anything there which provided a scientific basis for ID. There was a lot of gibberish and roundabout logic and unsuitable analogies with man made objects. Perhaps you could highlight some relevant parts?

I gather you agree with this:

Design theorists contend that specified complexity is a reliable indicator of design, is instantiated in certain (though by no means all) biological structures, and lies beyond the remit of nature to generate it.

[mataj]

Give us all the scientific evidence that shows ID is a serious scientific theory.
Even an experiemnt.Wrong question.

As an "ad ignorantiam" fallacy, ID needs no proof nor evidence. It's reasoning is based on incompleteness of afailable facts, and on imperfection of scientific theories- in other words, on our ignorance, which we can not deny.

Furthermore, ID offers explanation for everything ("the Great Designer did it").

What prevents ID from being worthy of scientific consideration is lack of empirically testable predictions. Physics makes a lot of predictions we can experimentally verify. Evolution theory predicts, among others, that no fosile will never be found in a wrong geological layer. It also predicts a lot of genetic & biochemical stuff. ID, on the other hand, predicts nothing. It explains only .

The proper question to ask here would be "Tell us, how coud ID be scientifically (empirically) disproven?" If there is no way to disprove it, ID is no science. It's religion.

[Duo_Maxwell]

That's rich coming from somebody who, if I recall, couldn't even grasp the basic concept of irreducible complexity from even a non-biological perspective.

That rich comming from someone who doesn't understand that irreducible complexity is a fraudelent claim regardless of the context or perspective. Realizing that the claim is absolute bull**** and not understanding it are two different things. Learn the difference.

At least I don't think God was responsible for something I can't explain

No one really knows how the economy functions. Even Greenspan admits that. Your logic dictates that God is responsible. No one knows exactly how gravity works. Your logic dictates that God is responsible. Most people don't know how microwaves work. Your logic dictates that God is responsible.

I have yet to see you refute that ID is nothing but a giant cop out for the impatient.

[Strel]

*sigh*

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm)
Argument: ‘Irreducible complexity’ (https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp)
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp)
THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM: STILL SPINNING JUST FINE (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm)
Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm)
Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=465)
Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51)
Is Intelligent Design Testable? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm)
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm)
Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design (http://iscid.org/papers/Bracht_InventionsAlgorithms_112601.pdf)
The Evolution of the Human Eye (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/humaneye.html)
DNA and Other Designs (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm)
Design in living organisms (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/motors.asp)
Another Way to Detect Design? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm)
Biochemical Limits to Evolution (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html)
Evolving the Flagellum (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Flagellum.html)
DNA, Design and the Origin of Life (http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html)

Maybe doing your own research might help next time.


Worthless. Behe's premises and conclusions are faulty, for the reasons other have stated above.

Find someone else, because Mike is not going to do it for you.

[mataj]

*sigh*

Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm)
Argument: ‘Irreducible complexity’ (https://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter10.asp)
Irreducible complexity: some candid admissions by evolutionists (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i2/admissions.asp)
THE BACTERIAL FLAGELLUM: STILL SPINNING JUST FINE (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm)
Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature: Response to Critics (http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_evolutionaryliterature.htm)
Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=465)
Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=51)
Is Intelligent Design Testable? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm)
Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm)
Inventions, Algorithms, and Biological Design (http://iscid.org/papers/Bracht_InventionsAlgorithms_112601.pdf)
The Evolution of the Human Eye (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/humaneye.html)
DNA and Other Designs (http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_dnaotherdesigns.htm)
Design in living organisms (http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/motors.asp)
Another Way to Detect Design? (http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_anotherwaytodetectdesign.htm)
Biochemical Limits to Evolution (http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/mutation.html)
Evolving the Flagellum (http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/Flagellum.html)
DNA, Design and the Origin of Life (http://www.origins.org/articles/thaxton_dnadesign.html)

Maybe doing your own research might help next time.
***Sigh***
All theese arguments were disproven time and time again, but creationists just keep harping on them. Maybe they hope, that their drivel will become truth if repeated long enough.

Mathematics behind irreducilble complexity is hopelessly flawed. Anyone with a slightest idea about optimization theory and/or vector field theory can realize that. Alas, theese things are above high school mathematics. I've tried to explain them as plainly as I possibly could here, to no avail.

The rest of above links is "life is too complicated for us to explain, therefore . . ." kind of stuff.

[USA-1]

Give scientific proof of how the universe was created.
First there was nothing and then the universe was created by a big bang. Creating everything from nothing is quite a trick. The formation of life from dead is quite a trick too.

[Strel]

First there was nothing and then the universe was created by a big bang. Creating everything from nothing is quite a trick. The formation of life from dead is quite a trick too.

Not so tricky, when you understand the science behind it, consider that chemical (and biochemical) processes are not random in the first place, and comprehend the billions of years available...

Suddenly the "irreducibly complex" becomes a simple matter of accumulated change, and the "impossibilities" almost become inevitabilities.

The kicker is, there is nothing necessarily supernatural about it.

[USA-1]

Not so tricky, when you understand the science behind it, consider that chemical (and biochemical) processes are not random in the first place, and comprehend the billions of years available...

Suddenly the "irreducibly complex" becomes a simple matter of accumulated change, and the "impossibilities" almost become inevitabilities.

The kicker is, there is nothing necessarily supernatural about it.
Explain to me how the universe was created from nothing.

[JoeR]

I think the current primary scientific belief is that everything was once a singularity, and when things get down to that kind of quantum level, the laws of time really get screwed up so there never was a state of nothing.

Could be way off here. My scientific knowledge is rather pedestrian.

[USA-1]

DNA Molecules and the Overwhelming Odds Against Spontaneous Generation
Within each cell there is an area called the nucleus which contains the all-important chromosomes. Chromosomes are microscopically small, rod-shaped structures which carry the genes. Within the chromosomes is an even smaller structure called DNA. This is one of the most important chemical substances in the human body – or in any other living thing. Increasing scientific understanding of DNA molecules has revealed enormous problems for materialism.

What are the chances of evolving the DNA molecule crucial to all life by natural processes? Without an outside controlling designer of some kind, it is virtually impossible.

DNA is a super-molecule which stores coded hereditary information. It consists of two long "chains" of chemical "building blocks" paired together. In humans, the strands of DNA are almost 2 yards long [approx. 1.82 meters], yet less than a trillionth of an inch thick [approx. 0.0000254 microns].

In function, DNA is somewhat like a computer program on a floppy disk. It stores and transfers encoded information and instructions. It is said that the DNA of a human stores enough information code to fill 1,000 books – each with 500 pages of very small, closely-printed type. The DNA code produces a product far more sophisticated than that of any computer.

Amazingly, this enormous set of instructions fits with ease within a single cell and routinely directs the formation of entire adult humans, starting with just a single fertilized egg. Even the DNA of a bacterium is highly complex, containing at least 3 million units , all aligned in a very precise, meaningful sequence.

DNA and the molecules that surround it form a truly superb mechanism – a miniaturized marvel. The information is so compactly stored that the amount of DNA necessary to code all the people living on our planet might fit into a space no larger than an aspirin tablet!
Many scientists are convinced that cells containing such a complex code and such intricate chemistry could never have come into being by pure, undirected chemistry. No matter how chemicals are mixed, they do not create DNA spirals or any intelligent code whatsoever. Only DNA reproduces DNA.

Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000 that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000th is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life.html

To say that DNA just happened by chance because of time passing is a little simplistic.

[USA-1]

I think the current primary scientific belief is that everything was once a singularity, and when things get down to that kind of quantum level, the laws of time really get screwed up so there never was a state of nothing.

Could be way off here. My scientific knowledge is rather pedestrian.
So there was no beginning of time? All the stuff to create the universe was just there? Where did it come from?

[Duo_Maxwell]

Not exactly USA-1.

First of all modern DNA is complex, but RNA, its ancestor and servant is relatively simple. Few actually believe DNA came first. Most hold that simple RNA, not even close to what the several types of RNA we use came first. That eliminates the issue of the double helix and mass complications.

The probability claim is quite fradulent. Creationists love to argue that evolution is false because abiogenesis, which isn't even a part of evolution is mathetmically impossible. The problem is they assume that only one reaction occurs at once. Bull****. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of inorganic chemical reactions occur everyday. There's nothing saying that such inorganic reactions didn't occur at the same rate back during the primordial soup era. Consider the dice issue. One die trying to get a series of combinations will take a long time. A billion dice trying to get the same series at the same time will take in comparsion, a blink of a eye.

[mataj]

Explain to me how the universe was created from nothing.There are many things science can't reliably explain, or can't explain at all. You can either reconcile yourself with our ignorance about this stuff, or look for your own answers if you want to.

DNA Molecules and the Overwhelming Odds Against Spontaneous Generation . . .Spontaneous Generation is Creationist's idea. Evolution theory makes no such claims.

[Strel]

Explain to me how the universe was created from nothing.


False premise. You must first prove it was created from "nothing" rather than something else, in this case, a singularity. Quite literally a ball of string, IMHO.

Bill Bryson has done a very accessible book on the subject, called A Short History of Nearly Everything. which does an excellent job of explaining the state of knowledge thus far. I suggest you check it out.

If you want something meatier, try Hawking's stuff.

[Strel]

So there was no beginning of time? All the stuff to create the universe was just there? Where did it come from?


And what do these questions have to do with evolution or abiogenesis, except to serve as a convenient diversion from ID's total lack of falsifiable hypotheses?

[Strel]

Not exactly USA-1.

First of all modern DNA is complex, but RNA, its ancestor and servant is relatively simple. Few actually believe DNA came first. Most hold that simple RNA, not even close to what the several types of RNA we use came first. That eliminates the issue of the double helix and mass complications.

The probability claim is quite fradulent. Creationists love to argue that evolution is false because abiogenesis, which isn't even a part of evolution is mathetmically impossible. The problem is they assume that only one reaction occurs at once. Bull****. Trillions upon trillions upon trillions of inorganic chemical reactions occur everyday. There's nothing saying that such inorganic reactions didn't occur at the same rate back during the primordial soup era. Consider the dice issue. One die trying to get a series of combinations will take a long time. A billion dice trying to get the same series at the same time will take in comparsion, a blink of a eye.


Creationists never fail to conclusively demonstrate that they simply cannot grasp the concept of probability. :sorry:

[mataj]

Creationists never fail to conclusively demonstrate that they simply cannot grasp the concept of probability. :sorry:Their probabilities are calculated correctly. The problem wiht theese calculations is that they are based on false assumptions. They assume, that living cell came together by chance, which is not the case.

[USA-1]

And what do these questions have to do with evolution or abiogenesis, except to serve as a convenient diversion from ID's total lack of falsifiable hypotheses?
Evolution could be part of intelligent design. I totally believe in evolution. It is the beginning of life from a mud puddle and the formation of the universe from nothing that I think might have some ID involved.

[USA-1]

Creationists never fail to conclusively demonstrate that they simply cannot grasp the concept of probability. :sorry:


You ******, I am not a creationist and I know all about probability. I believe in evolution and just have questions about how life and the universe could have just happpened randomly.

[Strel]

Evolution could be part of intelligent design. I totally believe in evolution. It is the beginning of life from a mud puddle and the formation of the universe from nothing that I think might have some ID involved.


Hey that's great. BTW, any luck coming up with some falsifiable hypotheses from ID? No? That's too bad, because without them, it ain't science. :sorry:

[Strel]

You ******, I am not a creationist and I know all about probability. I believe in evolution and just have questions about how life and the universe could have just happpened randomly.

Uh huh. Were that true, you would then know that ID is a load of crap.

Bit touchy today?

[mugawump]

That's rich coming from somebody who, if I recall, couldn't even grasp the basic concept of irreducible complexity from even a non-biological perspective.

Ya kno, I had one of those once, but the wheels fell off--The next day it rained, so I put on the other shoe and went to bed??????-????

[mugawump]

Hi! Folks, Nobody asked me, but the fact is that you are agruing about something that no one can answer, and no one will ever answer TO WIT:

I am an evolutionist, however, there are many serious unanswered
questions about the origins of life, propogation of the much varied
species of life Animal and vegetable, and so forth, There are two
questions which will never be answered. How far is up??? (how far
does space extend, and what may be beyons space as we know it) and Who
begat the begater (Is there a phsical God, or perhaps it is another
way of saying "Mother Nature"
None of us really know the answer to these questions, and it behoves us
to instill a querrisome mind in each other, and especially our offspring. so I say GO FOR IT.

[USA-1]

Uh huh. Were that true, you would then know that ID is a load of crap.

Bit touchy today?
So you believe life and the universe just happened by chance. Maybe it did. You have no proof of that either. Probability works both ways to prove and discredit both theories.
Touchy about being labeled just because I try to have an open mind and I don't believe in something beyond a reasonable doubt.

[mataj]

Evolution could be part of intelligent design. I totally believe in evolution. You are totally wrong here. Evolution is not a religion, it's a scientific theory. As such, it's not meant to be believed into, on the contrary. It's meant to be doubted into and empirically verified, time and time again.

Religious belief in evolution is far worse than any creationism.

[USA-1]

You are totally wrong here. Evolution is not a religion, it's a scientific theory. As such, it's not meant to be believed into, on the contrary. It's meant to be doubted into and empirically verified, time and time again.

Religious belief in evolution is far worse than any creationism.
No you are wrong.
I know what evolution is and I believe in the theory of evolution and I do not believe in God. However I also believe it's possible, I said possible, that evolution could be the result of intelligent design. The problem I have is with the very first living one cell organism and the exact instant inorganic compounds turned into life.

[mataj]

No you are wrong.
I know what evolution is and I believe in the theory of evolution and I do not believe in God.It is OK to presume, that theory of evolution is correct. You need not, and should not believe in it. You believe in religious truth, not scientific theories. Theese are empirically verified, not believed into. You shouldn't belive in the 1st Newton's law either. It's not truth.

However I also believe it's possible, I said possible, that evolution could be the result of intelligent design.Many things are possible, but science deals only with the proveable ones.

The problem I have is with the very first living one cell organism and the exact instant inorganic compounds turned into life.There was no such thing as One First Cell. First living cells already were a product of evolution. One single molecule in an entire primordial ocean, capable of self-replication (RNA, DNA, whatever) was enough to start it. Primordial ocean has at some point proper chemical composition, which enabled this. From one self-replicating molecule became 2, and 4, and 8, and so on. After a couple of ten generations, entire ocean was full of them. It's chemical composition gradually changed, and only RNA/DNA/whatever molecules, which developed protective membrane & metabolic system survived. That's about how the hypothesis goes, but it remains to be proven.

[Strel]

So you believe life and the universe just happened by chance. Maybe it did. You have no proof of that either. ?

Absolute, empirical proof? No, and likely impossible. But there is evidence supporting this view, and falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested and confimed. ID does not have this. It is nothing more than guesswork based upon an incorrect understanding (or deliberate misrepresentation) of how the probabilities involved work.

What it does have, irrelevant as it may be, is that it is intuitive enough for people to understand it without having to study it in any detai; In that sense, it is easier to "market" than evolutionary biology or theories of abiogenesis, which are a lot more complex and not necessarily intuitive. So ID is bound to be popular, despite being a load of crap.

Probability works both ways to prove and discredit both theories.
Touchy about being labeled just because I try to have an open mind and I don't believe in something beyond a reasonable doubt.

What makes you so sure that your doubt is reasonable? Mataj, better than anyone here, can explain the mathematics....but few here would understand it.

[USA-1]

Mathematics can not prove that life can be created from non-life. It can just prove that all the ingredients for life had a good probability of coming together at one point in time. Something more than mathematics had to happen at that point to create the first one cell life form that can reproduce and mutate into all the other life forms. Just because all the ingredients are brought together does not make life happen.It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other.
The claim that a first cell came together spontaneously from mindless chemicals is an opinion about ancient history. At one point in time there had to be a first cell. It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated so it is not science but only a theory. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt therefore my doubt is reasonable. If you have no doubts then you are not reasonable.

[mataj]

Mathematics can not prove that life can be created from non-life. It can just prove that all the ingredients for life had a good probability of coming together at one point in time. Something more than mathematics had to happen at that point to create the first one cell life form that can reproduce and mutate into all the other life forms. Just because all the ingredients are brought together does not make life happen.It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other.
The claim that a first cell came together spontaneously from mindless chemicals is an opinion about ancient history. At one point in time there had to be a first cell. It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated so it is not science but only a theory.Again: There was no such thing as "one first cell". "One first cell" is just a creationist's straw man.

It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt therefore my doubt is reasonable. If you have no doubts then you are not reasonable.
Science is not judicature. Nothing is ever proven beyond reasonable doubt here, anything can be put under scrutiny any time.

And remember: The fact, that something is not proven enough, proves nothing.

[USA-1]

Again: There was no such thing as "one first cell". "One first cell" is just a creationist's straw man.

Science is not judicature. Nothing is ever proven beyond reasonable doubt here, anything can be put under scrutiny any time.

And remember: The fact, that something is not proven enough, proves nothing.
At one point in time there had to be a first cell. At one point a first cell had to be formed. How can you not see that? It has nothing to do with creationism.
So there is a reasonable doubt. Hello. That is what I said.

[Strel]

Mathematics can not prove that life can be created from non-life. It can just prove that all the ingredients for life had a good probability of coming together at one point in time. [/b]

Which is a great deal more than ID can do, which is to simply throw up its hands and make ad ignorantum arguments.

Something more than mathematics had to happen at that point to create the first one cell life form that can reproduce and mutate into all the other life forms.

That "something else" would be chemistry, and it is not random.

Just because all the ingredients are brought together does not make life happen.It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other.

Who says it had to happen spontaneously? IT IS NOT A RANDOM PROCESS. Sand (silicon dioxide) does not exist because oxygen and silicon just randomly hook up and bond. It is a process governed by physical laws - and not random. This is the fundamental mistake of ID theory.

[b]The claim that a first cell came together spontaneously from mindless chemicals is an opinion about ancient history. At one point in time there had to be a first cell. It cannot be observed, tested, or repeated so it is not science but only a theory. It has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt therefore my doubt is reasonable. If you have no doubts then you are not reasonable.

It is a hypothesis backed by empircal evidence. Again, this is much. much more than ID could ever hope to offer. Of course I have doubts. Everyone should - but to put stock in ID when it doesn't even qualify as science in the first place seems rather unreasonable to me.
:sorry:

[mataj]

At one point in time there had to be a first cell. At one point a first cell had to be formed. How can you not see that? It has nothing to do with creationism.I've explained a couple of post back how it is supposed to happen. The way evolution usually goes, there was not one first cell, but plenty of different kinds of "first cells". Transition from first self-replicating RNAs (it think it was RNA) to the cell was gradual.

So there is a reasonable doubt. Hello. That is what I said.There is nothing wrong about doubting scientific theories, that's why they are here for. It's wrong to make any conclusions based on that doubt, like "there is not enough evidence, therefore ...", or "we don't know exactly how it happened, therefore ...".

Doubts about evolution, incomplete evidence for the evolution theory, eventual holes and deficiencies in evolution theory- none of this can be used as proof for Intelligent Design. Ignorance proves nothing.

[Strel]

At one point in time there had to be a first cell. At one point a first cell had to be formed.

Why? No really - why? I realize that this is an intuitive view, but it is not necessarily a correct one. Where is your evidence that it had to have happened this way, instead of in the manner mataj described? Which do you think is more likely?

I think you are hung up on a lot of presuppositions and assumptions that are not valid. It is pretty hard to reach a correct conclusion when you assume facts not in evidence and base your conclusions on false premises.

How can you not see that? It has nothing to do with creationism.
So there is a reasonable doubt. Hello. That is what I said.

What we are debating is whether ID counts as reasonable doubt in the face of science that can be tested, whereas ID cannot be.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Strel & mataj, you both need to realize that the ID USA-1 is talking about is radically different then the one in the media.

Nothing about guidance, nothing about backdoor creation. Just merely the possibility that Evolution in its current, modern scientific Godless form is merely a tool that a creator used.

[USA-1]

Why? No really - why? I realize that this is an intuitive view, but it is not necessarily a correct one. Where is your evidence that it had to have happened this way, instead of in the manner mataj described? Which do you think is more likely?

I think you are hung up on a lot of presuppositions and assumptions that are not valid. It is pretty hard to reach a correct conclusion when you assume facts not in evidence and base your conclusions on false premises.



What we are debating is whether ID counts as reasonable doubt in the face of science that can be tested, whereas ID cannot be.
Which presupositions and assumptions are not valid? Nothing I have stated can be proven to be false premises. That is only your opinion.
There is no evidence that it happened either way. Both are just theories and can not so far be proven as fact. True there is some scientific evidence that life just happened. To believe in something that has not been proven either way without any doubt is not rational and similar to faith based beliefs.

What are the facts that prove your theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is better to look at the unproven theory with an open mind or you may be proven wrong.

Al I am really saying is that there are reasonable doubts about all theories of how life was formed. If life is ever created in the lab then the doubts will dissappear.

[mataj]

Strel & mataj, you both need to realize that the ID USA-1 is talking about is radically different then the one in the media.

Nothing about guidance, nothing about backdoor creation. Just merely the possibility that Evolution in its current, modern scientific Godless form is merely a tool that a creator used.As far as I'm concerned, it's more about the basic principles of science than any particular theory. IMHE, this is the biq issue here, not the proteins&fossiles.

Al I am really saying is that there are reasonable doubts about all theories of how life was formed. If life is ever created in the lab then the doubts will dissappear.I hope I'm not too annoyant here, but I think this can't be stressed often enough. Doubts & skepticism about theories are essential part of science. No proof can be as solid as to be beyond reasonable doubt. Everything must be empirically proven again and again, verified, and reverified.

BUT: Doubts about one theory, do not prove any other theory.

Furthermore, any kind of ID is not a scientific theory, because it's empirically unverifiable. It's impossible to disprove it by any experiment or observation.

[USA-1]

Doubts about one theory, do not prove any other theory.[/B]

Furthermore, any kind of ID is not a scientific theory, because it's empirically unverifiable. It's impossible to disprove it by any experiment or observation.

That is what I've been trying to say all along is that I have reasonable doubts about every theory. Both theories are not empirically verifiable even if scientific evidence supports one over the other. I am not 100% convinced that any theory is actual fact.
ID could be proven if the force that created life makes a re-appearance and shows us how it did it.. So nothing is impossible.
Perhaps the extra terrestrials that planted life on this planet might visit us again and disprove all theories. Or the origin of life landed on this planet aboard a meteorite.

[mataj]

ID could be proven if the force that created life makes a re-appearance and shows us how it did it.. This is the only way ID could be proven. It's nothing WE could prove here, however, nothing we could do about it.

One of the basic principles of science is the repetitiveness of experiments or observations. Facts scientific theories are based on, as well as it's predictions must be verifiable by anyone as many times as necessary. ID is therefore not a scientific theory, it's not empirically verifiable. Sitting around and waiting for creator(s) to appear is not an empirical proof.


I know, that evolution theory seems counter intuitive, justifiably so. It's normal, that one asks himself "How could mindless self replicating molecules create something as sophisticated as living cells?" "How could simple mutation & selection produce something as complex as eye?". But, consider this. Mutation and selection is analoguos to so called "Monte Carlo" algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte-Carlo_Algorithm). This algoritm has been used for decades, and it DOES solve problems. If you imagine trillions upon trillions of tiny computers in primordial ocean, each one of them executing Monte-Carlo algoritm in parallel... well, you'll have to admit, that absence of a highly complex solutions seems pretty unlikely here.

Have you ever created or designed something? Like invented stuff in your garage for hobby, and such? If you examine what exactly were you doing you will notice, that the process was everything but straightforward. You tinkered a little bit, tried this and that, more or less at random, and tried it. If your tinkering produced better results, you kept the solution, otherwise you discarded it. And then, you tinkered a bit more, tested, tinkered, tested, and so on. This is exactly how Monte-Carlo algoritm and evolution work. Looking from this perspective, evolution is basically the same process as design.

[Strel]

Which presupositions and assumptions are not valid? Nothing I have stated can be proven to be false premises. That is only your opinion.

Which ones are more valid, ones that can be tested, or ones that cannot be? That should not be a matter of opinion.

There is no evidence that it happened either way. Both are just theories and can not so far be proven as fact. True there is some scientific evidence that life just happened. To believe in something that has not been proven either way without any doubt is not rational and similar to faith based beliefs.

There is ample evidence that the various combinations of circumstances and substances were present, that the conditions were right for life to develop and were for a long time on a sizeable portion of the planet. We know how it may hve happened, and it seems pretty clear that it was not only possible but even likely to happen under the circumstances. There is evidence to support it in the fossil and older geological record. Hypotheses are formed from present evidence, predictions can be made and tested, and found valid or not. Miller and Abbot weren't as successful as was initially believed, but they set the groundwork for later experiments on the early atmosphere, seas, and the chemicals that would have been available.

Meanwhile, ID (and despite what Duo is saying, I'm talking about the Behe version) has no evidence, only supposition based on ignorance. It has no falsifiable hypotheses that can be tested. It does not qualify as science.

Which seems more valid to you?

What are the facts that prove your theory beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is better to look at the unproven theory with an open mind or you may be proven wrong.

I'm looking at a hypothesis that can't be proven. How open should my mind be?

Al I am really saying is that there are reasonable doubts about all theories of how life was formed. If life is ever created in the lab then the doubts will dissappear.

And all I am saying is that giving ID the same credence as evolutionary biology is not reasonable.

[Void Image]

Hi everyone, I'm new to these forums and this is my first post. I couldn't help but look through the religion/philosophy forum first, and this one really caught my eye. If the argument, as I understand it, is whether or not ID is as valid as the theory of evolution or scientific, then I would have to say absolutely not. There is no logic in the 'theory' of intelligent design.

The theory of evolution was not just 'thrown out there' by Darwin. It did not originate in a fictional story book. Darwin's hypothesis was the result of intense study of the fossil record, biology, and observed changes in existing animal species among other things. It's a guess, yes, but it's an EDUCATED guess. It is SCIENTIFIC.

I have yet to see anything scientific about ID. "The world around me is complex, but it works, and I exist, therefore it(and all the things in it) must have been created"

Using your logic, I could just as easily point out the fact that this 'creator' must also exist, and must be pretty complex himself. What created the creator? The answer I most often hear is 'The creater was not created, he has just always been'

Another reason why ID is NOT scientific and NOT logical. To create an exception in your theory in order to validate your theory makes NO SENSE. Why not make an exception for the universe?

The major difference between evolution/big bang and Intelligent Design is that the former theory is constantly being tested, retested, contradicted, and supported. Scientists are out there to disprove it or find supporting evidence. Supporters of Intelligent Design do nothing but defend the theory, overlooking it's substantial flaws and complete lack of intelligable evidence.

[USA-1]

And all I am saying is that giving ID the same credence as evolutionary biology is not reasonable.
I am not disputing the theory of evolutionary biology at all. In fact all the evidence points to it as being fact. I have never disputed evolution. When I believe it might be possible for intelligent design to come into play is at the very moment life from non-life begins at the simplest form. Something happened at that moment to begin the chain of events that has led to life as we know it today.

[mataj]

I am not disputing the theory of evolutionary biology at all. In fact all the evidence points to it as being fact. I have never disputed evolution. When I believe it might be possible for intelligent design to come into play is at the very moment life from non-life begins at the simplest form. Something happened at that moment to begin the chain of events that has led to life as we know it today.There was no such moment. Living cells as we know them today evolved gradually.

[ZXL]

Didn't the analysis of interspecies DNA provide sufficient evidence that evolution is real? :confused:

[heel31ok]

There was no such moment. Living cells as we know them today evolved gradually.
yeah they were not alive, then they were close to alive, then right at being alive, then became alive.Evolution as a first cause of life even gradually is not close to being probable or possible.

[towski]

yeah they were not alive, then they were close to alive, then right at being alive, then became alive.Evolution as a first cause of life even gradually is not close to being probable or possible.

Huh? I guess it must depend on what your definition of life is.

[heel31ok]

Why? No really - why? I realize that this is an intuitive view, but it is not necessarily a correct one. Where is your evidence that it had to have happened this way, instead of in the manner mataj described? Which do you think is more likely?

I think you are hung up on a lot of presuppositions and assumptions that are not valid. It is pretty hard to reach a correct conclusion when you assume facts not in evidence and base your conclusions on false premises.



What we are debating is whether ID counts as reasonable doubt in the face of science that can be tested, whereas ID cannot be.
This science cannot be tested it is in the same boat as ID. evolution assumes more than ID becuase it has to introduce more variable assumptions . ID is not strong enough it is a weak attempt to placate both sides of this argument . It is like putting the X in christmas it is trying to take Christ( God) out of it.

[heel31ok]

Huh? I guess it must depend on what your definition of life is.
I can agree with that.

[mataj]

yeah they were not alive, then they were close to alive, then right at being alive, then became alive.Evolution as a first cause of life even gradually is not close to being probable or possible.There was no Frankenstein moment in the course of evolution, like "it's alive!". In the beginning, border between living and non living used to be much more crowded than today, when only viruses reside there.

[heel31ok]

There was no Frankenstein moment in the course of evolution, like "it's alive!". In the beginning, border between living and non living used to be much more crowded than today, when only viruses reside there.
Would viruses be living or non living?
There had to be a frankenstein moment because they cannot be half and half either they are or they are not.Even if it happened to a multitude at once it had to happen at a crisis point. so did they move around in circles at mid point development?

[USA-1]

There was no such moment. Living cells as we know them today evolved gradually.
I disagree. There had to be that momemt when non-life changed into life. There is no such thing as being partially alive. There is alive and there is dead. See, that is where your whole theory falls apart. Living cells evolved gradually from what? There had to be a point where they became alive and able to reproduce. There is no different levels of being alive. Something can reproduce or it can not. When it can reproduce it is alive and when it can not reproduce it is not alive.

[Void Image]

I disagree. There had to be that momemt when non-life changed into life. There is no such thing as being partially alive. There is alive and there is dead. See, that is where your whole theory falls apart. Living cells evolved gradually from what? There had to be a point where they became alive and able to reproduce. There is no different levels of being alive. Something can reproduce or it can not. When it can reproduce it is alive and when it can not reproduce it is not alive.

Not true. Just because something can replicate itself doesn't mean it's alive.

"Lee et al. made a 32-unit-long a-helical peptide based on the leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4. They found that it catalysed its own synthesis in a neutral, dilute water solution of 15 and 17-unit fragments."

Here is a case of something that can chemically reproduce itself but definitely is not a living thing.

Self replicating molecules(the precursor to DNA) slowly 'evolved' into more sophisticated and complex self replicating molecules. Someone brought up the virus in an earlier post. The virus reproduces, but other than that, viruses are more of a chemical than a living thing. They hover between being alive and..not alive.

[USA-1]

Not true. Just because something can replicate itself doesn't mean it's alive.

"Lee et al. made a 32-unit-long a-helical peptide based on the leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4. They found that it catalysed its own synthesis in a neutral, dilute water solution of 15 and 17-unit fragments."

Here is a case of something that can chemically reproduce itself but definitely is not a living thing.

Self replicating molecules(the precursor to DNA) slowly 'evolved' into more sophisticated and complex self replicating molecules. Someone brought up the virus in an earlier post. The virus reproduces, but other than that, viruses are more of a chemical than a living thing. They hover between being alive and..not alive.
I disagree. Viruses are alive and anything that can reproduce is alive. That is what life is.

[towski]

I disagree. Viruses are alive and anything that can reproduce is alive. That is what life is.

But that is an arbitrary definition, USA. Maybe I believe something is alive when it is self aware...

[USA-1]

But that is an arbitrary definition, USA. Maybe I believe something is alive when it is self aware...
The definition of life has to be defined first. I have done a lttle research and no one seems to agree on a definition.

[towski]

The definition of life has to be defined first. I have done a lttle research and no one seems to agree on a definition.

Exactly. So even thought there may be an exact moment, how do we know what it is? And that moment, as quick as it may seem, may be the result of millions of years leading up to it. So what looks like an arbitrary <snap> is actually a slow, gradual build up to the <snap>. From the outside, it looks like a miracle. From the inside, it looks torturously slow...

[mataj]

Would viruses be living or non living?
There had to be a frankenstein moment because they cannot be half and half either they are or they are not.Even if it happened to a multitude at once it had to happen at a crisis point. so did they move around in circles at mid point development?
I disagree. There had to be that momemt when non-life changed into life. There is no such thing as being partially alive. There is alive and there is dead. See, that is where your whole theory falls apart. Living cells evolved gradually from what? There had to be a point where they became alive and able to reproduce. There is no different levels of being alive. Something can reproduce or it can not. When it can reproduce it is alive and when it can not reproduce it is not alive.Reproduce, you say? Computer viruses are therefore alive? In principle, it would be possible to build robots, that build other robots like themselves. Would they be alive or not?

Whatever. Here and now it's pretty easy to say what is alive: If it's made from living cells, it's alive, otherwise it isn't. We are not sure where put the viruses, though, but never mind. Most people regards them as sort of alive.

If we would try to recognize life on some other planet, the above criteria wouldn't be very helpful. Alien life would not necessary be carbon based, it's metabolism and way of reproduction could be radically different, and so on. Well, and, the early Earth was, by all standards, an alien planet. Chemical composition of it's ocean was different, among others, and there was no oxygen in atmosphere, which consisted mostly of methane. If you would be able to travel back that far back in time, you wouldn't last a minute without a space suit. So- how could you tell what was alive back then and what wasn't? In the beginning there must have been some molecules capable of self reproduction, probably RNA. There was no need for the cell membrane, and complex metabollic apparatus, becaue "nutritients" were readily available. Membranes & metabolism appeared later, as ocean's chemical composition gradually changed. According to this theory, chemical composition of today's cell interior strongly resembles of a chemical composition of an early ocean. I'm not sure whether example of beforementioned self-replicating molecules was synthesized in the lab. I've recently read about such experiments, but I'm not sure whether they were succesful yet.

[JoeR]

Reproduce, you say? Computer viruses are therefore alive?

Heh, Stephen Hawking thinks they should count.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on.

[Void Image]

Heh, Stephen Hawking thinks they should count.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html

A living being usually has two elements: a set of instructions that tell the system how to sustain and reproduce itself, and a mechanism to carry out the instructions. In biology, these two parts are called genes and metabolism. But it is worth emphasising that there need be nothing biological about them. For example, a computer virus is a program that will make copies of itself in the memory of a computer, and will transfer itself to other computers. Thus it fits the definition of a living system, that I have given. Like a biological virus, it is a rather degenerate form, because it contains only instructions or genes, and doesn't have any metabolism of its own. Instead, it reprograms the metabolism of the host computer, or cell. Some people have questioned whether viruses should count as life, because they are parasites, and can not exist independently of their hosts. But then most forms of life, ourselves included, are parasites, in that they feed off and depend for their survival on other forms of life. I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image. I shall return to electronic forms of life later on.

I disagree with Hawking here. Computer viruses are not life because they exist only conceptually in the minds of humans and in the magnetic imprints of a hard drive. Take epilepsy for example. It's an electrical disturbance in the brain that spreads to other parts of the brain and produces unwanted results in the brain's circuitry. We would hardly consider epilepsy a living thing just because it spreads. I realize that epilepsy lacks a set of instructions, but in my opinion computer viruses are essentially the same thing. An electromagnetic disturbance in the computer's circuitry. Behind all that programming and spreading it can be broken down to nothing more than a set of 'bad' 0s and 1s(electrical impulses) that produce unwanted results in the computer's software.

This all comes down to the subjective definition of life, and is in my opinion why intelligent design cannot be considered a science. Science deals with the objective. Evolution seeks to answer HOW life came to be, not with the subjective definition of what someone might think life is. Intelligent design not only deals with how life came to be, but why life came to be, and because this deals with the subjective science can never answer it, so it isn't science.

[mataj]

Heh, Stephen Hawking thinks they should count.OK, so Hawking's definition is "reproduction only" or "if it reproduces, it's life". Some might disagree with it, but it's simple and precise enough even to precisely define "frankenstein moment" in the evolution of life. It happened, when 1st self reproducing molecule appeared. Now, that was self reproduction only, mind you, there was no cell membrane, not to mention complex stuff like DNA, metabolism, flagellums, and so on. All that came later. In the beginning, here was only replication, nothing else.

Frankenstein moment could look somewhat as follows then. There was an ocean with the proper mixture of chemicals, which provided favourable environment for self replication to occur. One single molecule in entire ocean was enough, and nothing more than self replication was necessary. That shouldn't be so terribly improbable. One 1st molecule produced copy of itself, and there were 2 of them. Theese two again self replicated, and there were 4 of them, than 8, and 16, and so on. After a couple of ten generations of exponential growth, entire ocean was full of self replicating, mutating molecules. Gradually, chemical composition of the early ocean changed, nutritients became more scarce, and only those molecules, that could self replicate in the changed conditions, survived. As conditions gradually became more harsh, more elaborate survival tools became necessary- cell membrane, metabolism, and so on.


I disagree with Hawking here. Computer viruses are not life because . . . There is no objective and universal definition of life. Definition of life is more or less arbitrary.

Take epilepsy for example. It's an electrical disturbance in the brain that spreads to other parts of the brain and produces unwanted results in the brain's circuitry. Bad example. There is no self replication here. Life is not about spreading, it's about replication.

This all comes down to the subjective definition of life, and is in my opinion why intelligent design cannot be considered a science. Science deals with the objective. It's not just your opinion. ID is not science, because it does not meet the requirements. Objectivity is not a problem here. Problems with ID are more subtle. One of them is total lack of verifiable predictions. In order to be scientifically scrutinized, theory must make certain predictions, that can be empirically verified. Typically, there is a set of basic laws (ID has none), from which various predictions can be deduced, and empirically tested. Physics predicts, that things will behave in accordance to it's formulas. This can be verified by experiments & measurements. Darwin's theory predicts among others, that there will be no mixing of fossiles from different geological periods in the same geological layer. This prediction can be verified by observation. ID, on the other hand, does not make predictions. It offers explanations only.