Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Why on Earth would a layman accept Darwinistic claims?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

First, by “Darwinistic” I mean “atheistic-materialist neo-Darwinist”, which includes the view that even the origin of life can be explained by reference to chance and natural law.

As Alan Fox points out, many of those here are “laymen” when it comes to evolutionary biology.  Most of us are not specifically schooled or trained in that arena – by “us”, I mean anyone who is interested in the debate about Darwinian evolution vs ID-inclusive evolution.  I, like many, have informed myself to a moderate degree about Darwinistic claims and the ID argument, but I’m certainly not a professional scientist, nor a philosopher with any formal academic training.

IMO, a reasonable layman would be highly skeptical of claims that matter, chance & natural law can by themselves  produce the sophisticated software/hardware nano-systems and architecture found in each self-replicating cell, much less produce consciousness, teleological will, intelligence, and imagination.  A reasonable layman would be much more likely to hold – until convinced by a good understanding of compelling evidence otherwise – that consciousness, intelligence, teleological will and imagination most probably come from that which has them or something like them already, and that highly complex, hierarchical, interdependent, organized, functional machinery that is operational through physically encoded instructions is only known to be originally produced by intelligence via teleological planning.  No one – to my knowledge – has ever witnessed unintelligent natural law, chance, and brute materials originate such devices and mechanisms. There is no good reason to believe that they can.

So I ask pro-Darwinistic, anti-ID laymen, like Alan Fox: without a professional  understanding of the biology, philosophy or logic involved, nor of information systems and theory, chemistry or bio-engineering, why on Earth would you accept that highly complex, hierarchical, interdependent, functional, self-replicating machines; consciousness, intelligence, teleological will and imagination can be produced (eventually) by the happenstance interactions of brute matter via law and chance?  What is the rational basis for accepting such a view,  especially if you admit that you do not really even understand the evidence/arguments pro or con because you are “just a layman”?

It seems to me laymen who do not feel qualified to argue the logic and the evidence on their own but instead prefer to defer to “experts” are in a situation where they should just remain skeptical of such claims, and certainly shouldn’t be cheerleading one side and dismissing the other.

Comments
It was pointed out that in Hanczc et al. 2003 that liposomes form spontaneously and that they can actually grow and divide. The hydrophobic effect plays a large part in this. Liposomes are not just round and contain things, they are fluid mosaics, selectively permeable, and obviously a lipid bilayer; the three hallmarks of even today's cell membranes. Thats a very interesting image you have but what you dont realize is that the "design" runner has no legs, he only has a rope tied to the back of the evolution runner, so that no matter what happens, the evolution runner will always be ahead. ID cant gain any ground because they cannot put forth a single falsifiable hypothesis. "God did it and you cant prove me wrong, but I can make fun of you for what you don't understand yet" is a great stance guys! Congrats.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
CharlieD @138:
Also a liposome is very similar to a cell membrane, it is just a much simpler version of the membranes we see today.
You mean it is similar in the sense that it is kind of round and can contain material? Sure we could call it a cell membrane if we stretch the term to include everything that is kind of round and can contain material. Rubber balloon? Cell membrane. Soap bubbles? Cell membrane. Even if we concede that a liposome is a primitive precursor of a cell membrane, we still have to explain how an actual cell membrane comes about, with its ability to embed proteins, control the flow of molecules in and out of the cell, engage in adhesion, cell signaling, etc. Further, even the liposomes you and joealtle been pushing need to be examined with a more critical eye in the context of OOL. Let's just turn to a basic review. The wikipedia article on liposomes, which I'm sure you've reviewed, informs us that the "correct choice of liposome preparation method depends" on a number of parameters that the designer must consider. Further, "formation of liposomes and nanoliposomes is not a spontaneous process." Rather, in most cases, there are specific manufacturing steps that must be followed. Thus, if anything, the research into liposomes and their current use demonstrates that getting a liposome that is stable and performs a specific task requires intelligent planning and input. To say nothing of getting an actual cell membrane. In my challenge, I've already granted the liposome as a safe haven for amino acids in the naturalistic origin of life storyline, as that is not the most critical problem area for OOL. Yet even getting to a liposome (which joealtle claimed was a cell membrane and could easily come about through purely natural processes) is a stumbling block to abiogenesis. I don't think getting a simple vesicle of some kind is insurmountable and, as I've said, I've already spotted whatever perfectly hospitable environment you want -- liposome or otherwise. But it is telling that the naturalistic story, which is supposedly backed by all that "science" joealtle claimed, has stumbled right out of the gate. ----- I have this image of two runners in a race, one with the word "Design" on the back of his running shirt, the other with the word "Evolution" on his. The first, knowing that his competitor will stumble during the race and wanting to at least keep things interesting, offers to let Evolution start 10 markers ahead. However, before the race even starts the Evolution runner stumbles while walking toward the first marker as he makes his way to the conceded forward starting line. The crowd looks on; some snickering, a few laughing out loud, but most shifting their eyes downward in pity and nervously shifting in their seats at the uncomfortable sight of the stumbling runner.Eric Anderson
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
08:57 AM
8
08
57
AM
PDT
CD, re:
“Do you have evidence that metabolism cannot come about from purely natural processes?”
Why do you imply a default conclusion unless something be shown impossible, presumably logically and/or physically? Tha'ts back ways around. In real science -- as opposed to a priori Lewontinian materialism or the like or fellow traveller ideologies -- a scientific claim needs adequate evidence. Where is the empirical OBSERVED evidence that homochiral systems of endothermic molecules of extraordinary complexity will spontaneously self assemble out of the known tendency to form racemic mixes, in metabolic reaction sets, and join themselves to a complex, code based algorithmic system using key-lock fitting component nanomachines depending on the specific geometry of molecules, with von Neumann self replication capacity? Where is the evidence that functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information [FSCO/I] can spontaneously form out of noise and necessity in reasonable environments without intelligent direction? There is abundant evidence that the only observed adequate cause of such FSCO/I is design. There is further evidence and analysis that the functionally specific clusters of arrangements of components of relevant degrees of complexity are so deeply isolated in the space of possible configs that it is maximally unlikely for such to form by chance and necessity. With all due respect, you are asking us to believe in miracles of blind chance and necessity poofing into existence, unless this can be shown to be impossible, not merely utterly implausible. And, by implication, you are asking us to accept such as practically certain scientific fact, without observational warrant. Soreeee, sir. First, ya gotta show us . . . KFkairosfocus
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
06:40 AM
6
06
40
AM
PDT
supplemental notes:
Dr. Hugh Ross - Origin Of Life Paradox (No prebiotic chemical signatures)- video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4012696 Life - Its Sudden Origin and Extreme Complexity - Dr. Fazale Rana - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4287513 Iron in Primeval Seas Rusted by Bacteria - Apr. 23, 2013 Excerpt: The oldest known iron ores were deposited in the Precambrian period and are up to four billion years old (the Earth itself is estimated to be about 4.6 billion years old). ,,, This research not only provides the first clear evidence that microorganisms were directly involved in the deposition of Earth's oldest iron formations; it also indicates that large populations of oxygen-producing cyanobacteria were at work in the shallow areas of the ancient oceans, while deeper water still reached by the light (the photic zone) tended to be populated by anoxyenic or micro-aerophilic iron-oxidizing bacteria which formed the iron deposits.,,, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130423110750.htm Electron transport and ATP synthesis during photosynthesis - Illustration http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=cooper.figgrp.1672 The Miracle Of Photosynthesis - electron transport - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hj_WKgnL6MI The Elaborate Nanoscale Machine Called Photosynthesis: No Vestige of a Beginning - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: "The ability to do photosynthesis is widely distributed throughout the bacterial domain in six different phyla, with no apparent pattern of evolution. Photosynthetic phyla include the cyanobacteria, proteobacteria (purple bacteria), green sulfur bacteria (GSB), firmicutes (heliobacteria), filamentous anoxygenic phototrophs (FAPs, also often called the green nonsulfur bacteria), and acidobacteria (Raymond, 2008)." http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/elaborate-nanoscale-machine-called.html?showComment=1341739083709#c1202402748048253561 Unusual Quantum Effect Discovered in Earliest Stages of Photosynthesis - May 2012 Excerpt: "The behavior we were able to see at these very fast time scales implies a much more sophisticated mixing of electronic states," Tiede said. "It shows us that high-level biological systems could be tapped into very fundamental physics in a way that didn't seem likely or even possible." The quantum effects observed in the course of the experiment hint that the natural light-harvesting processes involved in photosynthesis may be more efficient than previously indicated by classical biophysics, said chemist Gary Wiederrecht of Argonne's Center for Nanoscale Materials. "It leaves us wondering: how did Mother Nature create this incredibly elegant solution?" he said. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120524092932.htm
Verse and music:
John 1:4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. Toby Mac (In The Light) - music video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MpGRQRrP0
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
CharlieD as to: "Do you have evidence that metabolism cannot come about from purely natural processes?" Okie dokie ChalieD let's see. Let's look at the simplest form of energy required for metabolism, ATP:
Evolutionist Has Another Honest Moment as “Thorny Questions Remain” - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012 Excerpt: It's a chicken and egg question. Scientists are in disagreement over what came first -- replication, or metabolism. But there is a third part to the equation -- and that is energy. … You need enzymes to make ATP and you need ATP to make enzymes. The question is: where did energy come from before either of these two things existed? http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2012/07/evolutionist-has-another-honest-moment.html ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell - Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. Excerpt: In manufacturing terms, the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996). http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp Miniature Molecular Power Plant: ATP Synthase - January 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI8m6o0gXDY The ATP Synthase Enzyme - an exquisite motor necessary for first life - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3KxU63gcF4
Do you have any empirical evidence of this molecular machine, the ATP Synthase Enzyme, arising by purely material processes? Or are you now going to use this argument?
Darwinism Is Not Proved Impossible Therefore It Must Be True - Plantinga http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/
bornagain77
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
See the comment on the Dawkins page, I explain the simple protein generation idea a bit. Also a liposome is very similar to a cell membrane, it is just a much simpler version of the membranes we see today. Do you have evidence that metabolism cannot come about from purely natural processes? Maybe move this conversation over to the dawkins page I mentioned.CharlieD
April 29, 2013
April
04
Apr
29
29
2013
05:33 AM
5
05
33
AM
PDT
CharlieD: Nope. I have listed the scientific evidence, as opposed to his unsupported suppositions, assertions, hypotheticals and maybe-we'll-discover-some-day stories. And, no, I can't agree that his language is that of biology. Like franklin on the other thread, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions. Someone who thinks proteins can form on their own, that a liposome is like a cellular membrane, that metabolism can come about through purely natural processes. Nope, doesn't seem to be a lot of understanding of biology at work there.Eric Anderson
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
He's just explaining the scientific observations behind the various ideas of abiogenesis. You should provide him with some scientific observations behind ID that has to do with biology, as that's obviously his language.CharlieD
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT
joealtle:
First off, a perfectly hospitable environment isnt required as liposomes can form the earliest forms of cell membranes . . .
That's OK, I've already spotted you the perfect environment. So if you want to put your precious amino acids in a liposome, great. Calling a liposome an early form of cell membrane, however, is an abuse of the terminology, as numerous key components are missing for an actual cell membrane of a living cell. The only thing that can be said is that they are superficially similar, as long as we don't look too closely.
. . . and have been shown to exhibit basic forms of metabolism . . .
Please. Just look at any definition of "metabolism" and you'll see that this isn't true, unless we stretch the term "metabolism" beyond repair.
With the phospholipids and amino acids forming basic cellular units with catalytic activity along with early metabolism, the basic structures of sugars and nucleotides can be formed. From that, ATP and nucleic acids can eventually arise along with increased protein complexity.
Nonsense. Pure and complete, wild, unsupported speculation. Since you keep bringing up the support of "science," we should keep in mind the following: Science says that on the early Earth we are unlikely to find all the amino acids together in the same place in a large concentration in a free state. Science says that the smallest self-sufficient living organism currently known is composed of over 400 proteins and that the smallest hypothetical living organism would likely need over 200 proteins. Science says that it is virtually impossible within the lifetime of the known universe for even a handful of these proteins to arise by purely natural processes at the same time and in the same location. Science teaches us that a prebiotic soup of amino acids would be racemic and that there is no solid evidence that life previously was racemic or could transition from being racemic to left-handed. Science teaches us that once an amino acid chain of average length is formed it may not necessarily fold into a functional protein. Science says that even if a protein were formed, it would quickly be subject to natural decay processes and interfering cross reactions. Science says that the only reason biochemistry works “naturally” in the cell is because of the numerous cellular components and systems that are already in place and the homeostasis that the cell maintains in order for the biochemical work to occur. In short, the science is very much against the naturalistic abiogenesis storyline. It is evident that most of the prominent ID proponents, as well as several of us on this site, know far more about abiogenesis than you do. So it is ironic that you come in here with guns blazing and pounding the table about the "science" behind abiogenesis while calling ID proponents names for doubting the abiogenesis story. Do some homework. And most importantly, exercise some healthy skepticism when you hear the just-so stories, the speculations, and the hypotheticals of the materialist creation story, rather than just blindly swallowing everything hook, line, and sinker.Eric Anderson
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
Information is anything that can be interpreted. The first step in generating a process of informtion storage and interpretation of this info was likely taken by RNA, evidence supporting this claim can be seen in RNA's current functions as both information and catalysis of translation. RNA originally began to affect the generation of proteins on its own, eventually proteins began to aid the process, creating an early ribosome subunit. Eventually, RNA gave rise to DNA as a more stable information storage mechanism and RNA was kept as the medium between DNA and protein. Yes we rely heavily on indirect evidence, but its better than using a lack of evidence as evidence to support ID.Joealtle
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
JA: First, could you explain to us what information is? A code? What is seen to produce such in relevant quantities [100 - 1,000 k bits], and what has never been seen to produce such in such quantities? How you propose to bridge from physics and chemistry of a warm little Darwinian pond or the like, to complex, specific functional organisation of a gated, encapsulated, metabolising automaton using molecular nanotech and embracing a code-using von Neumann kinematic self replication facility? And, on what specific observational evidence that his has happened or is happening or happens in reasonable environments? (You may wish to cf here on to see what I am getting at. if you think you have a solid answer on origin of life and of body plans by naturalistic processes, you may want to take up the origins essay challenge here that has gone unanswered for over seven months now.) KFkairosfocus
April 28, 2013
April
04
Apr
28
28
2013
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT
First off, a perfectly hospitable environment isnt required as liposomes can form the earliest forms of cell membranes and have been shown to exhibit basic forms of metabolism and reproduction. With the phospholipids and amino acids forming basic cellular units with catalytic activity along with early metabolism, the basic structures of sugars and nucleotides can be formed. From that, ATP and nucleic acids can eventually arise along with increased protein complexity. At this point I realize a huge step has to be made somewhere in which the nucleic acids begin to correspond to information in amino acid sequence. While this is no doubt an extremely difficult process, the current structure and functions of RNA demonstrates it is not out of the question. RNA gave rise to DNA somewhere in there and I realize Im shooting this all out on a whim but its all generally backed by scientific observation and studies.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:28 PM
9
09
28
PM
PDT
Joealtle: Since you're interested in the RNA world approach and claim there is good evidence for natural abiogenesis, I'll tell you what, I'll make things real easy for you. I’ll spot you: (i) all the amino acids you want, (ii) all together at the same time and place, (iii) all in left-handed orientation, (iv) in just the right ratio, (v) in the perfectly hospitable environment, (vi) with just the right amount of energy to catalyze reactions, (vii) with no interfering cross reactions, and (viii) with stability following formation and no rapid breakdown of nascent formations. If you've been reading up on abiogenesis, as you claim, you will know that every one of these is a significant, perhaps insurmountable, obstacle for abiogenesis. But I'm willing to spot you all of them. Now tell us, exactly what is your theory about how these amino acids come together to form simple life?Eric Anderson
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
09:15 PM
9
09
15
PM
PDT
Hmm, off the top of my head, Marin Hanczyc and Shelly Fujikawa in 2003 showed that clay, in pools of phospholipids, triggers the formation of liposomes that actually grow and divide.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
"Numerous biochemical molecules have been generated by recreating early earth’s environment."
Biochemical molecules do not sequence specificity make. Or is it the other way around? And I forgot all about emergent properties, which are...emergent.
RNA has both catalytic and information storage functions,
Yes, but it's the information itself which needs to be explained, the complex arrangements of myriad codes corresponding to the specifications of biological machines and their assembly instructions.
There are many ideas on abiogenesis, all backed by scientific evidence.
That's what we're after here, the evidence that chemical interactions under some set of necessary conditions give rise to teleological organization and complex and specified information.
Feel free to post a scientific article and prove me wrong.
Now that's just giving up! I thought you had the evidence, and now I'm supposed to show that it doesn't exist? :PChance Ratcliff
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
This is my problem with you guys, you call BS but dont say why. Everything I say is proven science. I give you scientific facts, your response: OH BS MAN! Why would I expect any different from the ID movement though?Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT
The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory for the early evolution of life (except for all the others) - July 2012 Excerpt: "The RNA World scenario is bad as a scientific hypothesis" - Eugene Koonin “The RNA world hypothesis has been reduced by ritual abuse to something like a creationist mantra” - Charles Kurland "I view it as little more than a popular fantasy." - Charles Carter http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-7-23.pdfbornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:59 PM
5
05
59
PM
PDT
It is from these simple molecules that more complex structures can arise based on emergent properties and typical chemical reactions.
Emergent properties? Typical chemical reactions? LOL! You owe me a new keyboard! Complete BS and bluff. Keep studying man.Eric Anderson
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Numerous biochemical molecules have been generated by recreating early earth's environment. It is from these simple molecules that more complex structures can arise based on emergent properties and typical chemical reactions. The prebiotic soup allowed for chemical reactions to test the usefulness of the reaction and stability of the products. RNA has both catalytic and information storage functions, liposomes form on their own from pools of phospholipids, RNA itself can catalyze peptide bond formation, protein lattices with catalytic activity have been generated simply by dripping amino acids onto hot sand. RNA's current functions back its importance in early cells and the fact that ATP is the main form of cellular energy also supports the use of RNA by early cells for numerous functions. There are many ideas on abiogenesis, all backed by scientific evidence. There is no such evidence for ID, at least that im aware of. Feel free to post a scientific article and prove me wrong.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:51 PM
5
05
51
PM
PDT
@123, review #118. You keep claiming that all this positive evidence exists, yet you haven't produced any. So get your best set of articles elucidating the pathway from basic chemical interactions to self-replicating organisms and let's go over the evidence.Chance Ratcliff
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
How quick you guys are to quote only half of what I said. If you geniuses had read the read of what i said, you would have noticed that I said there also has evidence showing that abiogenesis is quite possible. This is scientific evidence that shows numerous ways that early cells could have arose. All of which are supported by looking at the basic mechanisms of life that we see today. Im still waiting for a scientific article about ID, anyone got one?Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
"Yeah, and it is possible that the sun will cease to shine tomorrow at noon or that gravity will fail tonight at midnight."
I'm stealing that, Eric. :PChance Ratcliff
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
BA77, that may be the single most convincing piece of evidence that blind chance and physical necessity can engineer teleological systems ever presented -- it hasn't been proven impossible -- which by the way, is way better than a design inference, whatever that is. :DChance Ratcliff
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
. . . abiogenesis has not been proven impossible . . .
Yeah, and it is possible that the sun will cease to shine tomorrow at noon or that gravity will fail tonight at midnight. Science doesn't deal in the realm of sheer logical possibility. We must look at reasonable probabilities. Time to get past sheer "possible" and start thinking about what is reasonably possible or reasonably likely given the realities of the universe we live in, the natural laws we are dealing with, and the timeframes available.Eric Anderson
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT
Now Now Chance, everyone knows that if it is not impossible then it must be true :) Darwinism Not Proved Impossible Therefore Its True - Plantinga - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/10285716/darwinism_not_proved_impossible_therefore_its_true_plantinga/bornagain77
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
RE: #117, Abiogenesis has not been proven impossible. Who knew such convincing evidence existed. This sort of explanatory power is intoxicating. And of course, if by positive evidence you mean that abiogenesis hasn't been proven impossible, then you are correct, and your credulity likely knows no bounds. If by arguments from ignorance you mean observations that the level of sophistication required for the simplest extant self-replicator surpasses our own technological achievements by far, and that the features of this type of nanotech self-replicator are very much like many teleological features of systems known to be designed -- features such as code storage, code replication, error correction, code translation via a manufacturing processes, materials synthesis, rotary motors and other machinery, countermeasures, signalling systems, transport systems, and general multi-part interdependent systemic configuration -- then you are again correct. Perhaps you also missed the point of #116, which highlights that making bind appeals to nature in order to account for the materially inexplicable is a gaps argument -- that is, an argument from ignorance. If you wish to present evidence that chance and necessity can construct a basic self-replicating organism then please do so; it will be considered on its merits; but simple claims that evidence somewhere exists that warrants inference to nature as a technology engineer get dull quickly, once their entertainment value has been exhausted.Chance Ratcliff
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
05:09 PM
5
05
09
PM
PDT
Call it whatever you want, abiogenesis has not been proven impossible and it has evidence to suggest it most certainly is possible. ID has nothing but arguments from ignorance.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT
"We call that, ‘the fabled promissory note’."
But Axel, we don't yet understand all the details about how nanotech self-replicators come about in an unguided, material fashion. Therefore, suggesting that intelligence may have been a necessary component for engineering this sort of teleological sophistication is god-of-the-gaps reasoning, because you're not insisting that the process is the strict result of chance and necessity. That's the error in your reasoning. :bChance Ratcliff
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
'Numerous studies are putting together the pieces of abiogenesis. There are many ideas on how it can happen and it was almost certainly a blend of many of these ideas. Simple molecules can arrrange themselves into structures with basic biological function to create early protocells. There is no evidence of an intelligent designer.' Joealtle, your repeated use of the present indicative, 'can', instead of the conditional 'might be able to', in your first two sentences, reveals that you have taken up an unambiguously religious position. You know the truth now. All you need to do is wait for the 'pieces' to be found and put together. We call that, 'the fabled promissory note'. Trouble with even the subsequent, putative evolution, with life as a given, is that every report of a discovery seems to be prefaced by such words as, 'Well, isn't evolution marvelous? Always coming up with new surprises, quite out of line with our expectations.'Axel
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT
Or someone who has read up on some of the science behind abiogenesis.Joealtle
April 27, 2013
April
04
Apr
27
27
2013
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
1 2 3 5

Leave a Reply