Friday, February 03, 2017

Trying to educate a creationist (Otangelo Grasso)

Otangelo Grasso is a creationist who's convinced he can learn to understand biochemistry by reading what's on the internet and copy-pasting it into his website. He then takes that limited knowledge and concludes that evolution is impossible. He often poses "gotcha" questions based on his flawed understanding.

His behavior isn't very different from most other creationists who suffer from Dunning-Kruger Disease but he happens to be someone who I thought could be educated.

I was wrong.

Over the years I've tried to correct a number of errors he's made so we could have an intelligent discussion about evolution. You can't have such a discussion if one side ignores facts and refuses to learn. Here's an example of a previous attempt: Fun and games with Otangelo Grasso about photosynthesis. Here's a post from yesterday showing that I wasted my time: Otangelo Grasso on photosynthesi.

One of my latest failed attempts concerns glycolysis. Otangelo Grasso claims that glycolysis is necessary to make ATP. He then points out that ATP is necessary to make the enzymes of the glycolytic pathway so evolution is impossible. Sandwalk readers will recognize it's difficult to know where to begin because there are so many flaws in this argument. Nevertheless, I decided, once again, to give it a try. I started by pointing out there are bacteria that do not have the standard glycolytic pathway and that gluconeogenesis (synthesis of glucose) undoubtedly evolved before glycolysis.

The discussion about gluconeogenesis and glycolysis is a classic case of his ridiculous behavior. I tried patiently to show him where he was going wrong but he refused to read and understand. Instead, he posted a number of articles on his website and Facebook and challenged me to answer his questions. Here's one on the origin of glucose: Where did Glucose come from in a prebiotic world?. What this shows is that Otangelo didn't listen to a thing I said about basic biochemistry and how scientists understand the origin of life.

He didn't like the fact that I have been ignoring him for the last few days so he posted a comment on Sandwalk. I'll try and answer his questions. I don't do this with the hope of teaching him anything. I'm doing it to show you what we are up against when tying to educate creationists. It looks hopeless to me.

Here's what he posted ....
Your explanation does not take into consideration that :

at three points, all outside the metabolic pools, do we find reactions in gluconeogenesis that use different enzymes:

https://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem/MBWeb/mb1/part2/gluconeo.htm
(1) the conversion of pyruvate to phosphoenolpyruvate (PEP),
(2) the conversion of fructose-1,6-bisphosphate to fructose-6-phosphate, and
(3) the conversion of hexose phosphate to storage polysaccharide or hexose phosphate to glucose.

Clearly, if cells are to conduct these reactions in the reverse direction, the three reactions must have a different ATP-to- ADP Stoichiometry and accordingly different enzymes are required.
I explained all this in previous posts and in the articles I linked to. He could also read my textbook if he really wanted to learn.

Otangelo, your reasoning is flawed but your facts are mostly correct. The best way to look at it is to assume that gluconeogenesis is the primitive pathway. In most, but not all, species, two or three new enzymes arose to make an efficient glycolysis pathway. The original glycolytic pathway began with glucose-6-phosphate produced from the breakdown of glycogen. The two new activities were phosphofructokinase-1 and pyruvate kinase.

Later on, cells acquired the ability to use free glucose from the external medium by means of a sugar transport system coupled to ATP hydrolysis to make glucose-6-phosphate from glucose. Bacteria have several different transport systems that are capable of this reaction. Animals convert the end product of glycolysis (glucose-6-phosphate) to free glucose that circulates in vessels to other cells. Glucose is taken up by those other cells so they need an enzymes to phosphorylate it. That enzymes is glucokinase and/or hexokinase. That's the third enzyme. It's found in many species but it's absolutely necessary in humans and other animals.

So, Otangelo, your point is correct insofar as there are differences between gluconeogenesis and glycolysis at three steps but you just have the order reversed. The three enzymes arose to facilitate glycolysis, not gluconeogensis. You've been told that before.
Gluconeogenesis (GNG) is a metabolic pathway that results in the generation of glucose from the breakdown of proteins, these substrates include glucogenic amino acids (although not ketogenic amino acids); from breakdown of lipids (such as triglycerides), they include glycerol (although not fatty acids); and from other steps in metabolism they include pyruvate and lactate.
This false statement comes from scientists who teach—hand were taught—that human biochemistry/physiology is all there is. The statement applies (partially) to humans but it does us no good when we are trying to understand the origin of biochemical pathways.

Knowledgeable biochemists assume that the first cells made glucose by fixing CO2, just as many bacteria do today. It's pretty silly to assume that the first cells could only make glucose by committing suicide. (The clue to the bias in your information comes from the claim that fatty acid breakdown can't contribute to the synthesis of glucose. That's because animals have lost the glyoxyate pathway. Most other species, including bacteria, are quite capable of interconverting fatty acids and carbohydrates.)
Questions:
If Gluconeogenesis came first, where did the atp and all other essential products to make enzymes come from to make the enzymes in the gluconeogenesis pathway?
Chemoautotrophs exist and so do plants. Surely you are aware of the fact that you can grow plants from seeds by only supplying them with water, air, and minerals?

Think about this a little bit. It means there are thousand of species that manage to thrive and reproduce (and make ATP) without external glucose. These include species that are incapable of photosynthesis. What does that mean? It means your question is ridiculous because there are obviously many ways to make ATP that have nothing to do with glycolysis. All you need to do is learn about them.
Prior Glycolysis took over, what other pathway would supposedly have been in place to produce the same substrates as Glycolysis?
If you're talking about ATP, see above.
What was in your view the precursors of gluconeogenesis?
The main carbon source in my textbook is pyruvate. Here's the overall equation of gluconeogenesis.
Chemoautrophic species, and many others, can make glucose from CO2 so there doesn't seem to be a major problem explaining gluconeogenesis.
Why would Gluconeogenesis be a less chicken egg - catch 22 problem ? Its complexity is basically the same as of Glycolysis.
We can't even begin to discuss this issue until you learn a little bit of biochemistry. I understand that no matter how much you learn you will always return to the same point; namely; that you refuse to accept any origin or life scenario that doesn't require gods. That's fine, I just want to stop you from spreading nonsense about biochemistry on the internet. You can reject biochemistry if you like but let's make sure it's correct biochemistry that you are rejecting.
If the problem of Glycolysis first was the fact that no Glucose was readily available on early earth, what makes you think, the above mentioned substrates to feed gluconeogenesis were less a problem?
Because there was always a good supply of CO2 on Earth.
Does Gluconeogenesis not depend on mitochondria, the cytoplasm, and the cell membrane amongst other molecules?
It certainly doesn't depend on mitochondria! The fact that you ask such a question shows me that you absolutely refuse to listen to anything I say.

If you are willing to accept everything I've said above and correct your Facebook pages and your website pages, then we can discuss the rest of your question. I can't do that knowing that you probably won't listen to anything I say.
Had pyruvate carboxylase and acetyl-CoA not have to be present for gluconeogenesis to start?
I suspect that a pyruvate carboxylase activity arose very early in the history of life because it is a carbon fixing reaction that converts a 3-carbon compound (pyruvate) to a four carbon compound (oxaloacetate).

Acetyl-CoA is not a requirement for gluconeogenesis but synthesis of 2-carbon compounds, such as acetate, was necessary in the early history of life. Acetate was then converted to pyruvate.
How did the transition from the 3 enzymes used in Gluconeogenesis to Glycolysis occur, and upon what selective pressures?
Originally there were only two new enzymes required since free glucose wasn't present in cells. I don't know how those two enzymes arose.

The selective pressure was the ability to store energy as glucose (glucose-6-phosphate) in the form of glycogen then break it down efficiently in order to recover the energy as ATP and NADH using the pre-existing enzymes of gluconeogenesis as much as possible.
Why would there have been a transition from a supposed precursor system to Glycolysis?
See above.

HTH HAND


258 comments :

  1. "you will always return to the same point; namely; that you refuse to accept any origin or life scenario that doesn't require gods."

    These scenarios may not require the miracles of gods, but they usually do require enzymes to arise, which is pretty close to the same thing.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Enzymes are catalysts. Many things in nature can act as catalysts. Another important difference is that gods are imaginary.

      Delete
    2. These scenarios may not require the miracles of gods, they usually do require enzymes to arise, which is pretty close to the same thing.

      I feel this is quite perceptive, very much along the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's remark that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. If you don't understand the science (or will yourself to fail to understand it, which, to quote txpiper, is pretty close to the same thing), then yes, normal chemical processes will seem quite miraculous to you.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
  2. My answer can read at the topic at my library: Where did Glucose come from in a prebiotic world ? ( to which you referenced above ), the last post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Otangelo Grasso responds

      Here are some examples of his response.

      Laurence Moran :
      The original glycolytic pathway began with glucose-6-phosphate produced from the breakdown of glycogen.
      Answer:
      Glycogen Synthesis : For de novo glycogen synthesis to proceed the first glucose residue is attached to a protein known as glycogenin.
      http://themedicalbiochemistrypage.org/glycogen.php

      So to have glycogen as substrate, you need glucose. So we are back to the same question : Where did glucose come from in early earth ?



      My question:
      If the problem of Glycolysis first was the fact that no Glucose was readily available on early earth, what makes you think, the above mentioned substrates to feed gluconeogenesis were less a problem?
      Laurence:
      Because there was always a good supply of CO2 on Earth.
      Answer:
      So what? you mentioned glycogen as alternative, which, as already answered , is a strawman answer.

      The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in this one.

      Delete
    2. Oh, Otangelo. You're too much! I bet you don't even realize how perfect a response that is.

      Delete
    3. Oh look. The troll of the court is still here....

      Delete
    4. Here's something you wrote on that typically logorrheic post of yours that Larry linked, OG:

      No. What my study showed...

      Your study, Otangelo? Where was this published? Please provide the citation.

      Delete
    5. "my study" - classic! Creationists seem to think that looking something up on a creationist website counts as "research" or "study." No wonder so many of them habitually denigrate and insult professional academics.

      Delete
  3. ///I suspect that a pyruvate carboxylase activity arose very early///

    that is an assumption, a guess

    where is the actual science?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a reasonable inference based on my knowledge of biochemistry.

      We will never be able to prove exactly how events unfolded 3.5 billion yeas ago.

      What kind of "actual science" are you looking for? Do know any better examples of actual science that make you suspicious of my claim?

      Delete
    2. But ironically he believes in talking snakes

      Delete
    3. Sarah

      If God can create a universe, and life, its peanuts for him to make a snake and a donkey talk.
      Before you ridicule religion, i suggest you do following:

      Creationism / ID is false, therefore, (strong) atheism is true. This is one of the most frequent logical fallacies of proponents of naturalism. " That is called Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise This illicit negative) occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. Atheists must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive world view based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer naturalism. What the debater must present, is a positive case for strong atheism by reference to the evidence that favours a naturalistic interpretation of reality. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural world can have a origin by its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that God does not exist. If atheists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for God, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient naturalistic explanations.

      Delete
    4. Sarah,

      The existence of Bigfoot is false, therefore, a-Bigfootism is true. This is one of the most frequent logical fallacies of proponents of a-Bigfootism. " That is called Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise This illicit negative) occurs when a categorical syllogism has a positive conclusion, but one or two negative premises. A-Bigfootists must be able to present and adopt a well-articulated, thorough-going positive world view based on positive evidence that results in good reasons to infer the non-existence of Bigfoot. What the debater must present, is a positive case for strong a-Bigfootism by reference to the evidence that favours a reality without Bigfoot. Asking to provide positive, compelling evidence that points to the fact that the natural Bigfoot-free world can have a origin by its own, is not the same as to ask for evidence that Bigfoot does not exist. If a-Bigfootists are going to argue that adequate answers exist without the need for Bigfoot, they are at least going to have to provide sufficient Bigfoot-free explanations.

      Delete
    5. Don't look now, but Otangelo is plagiarizing again:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_conclusion_from_a_negative_premise

      That's in addition to the fact that Otangelo routinely commits the very fallacy of which he accuses others. The only argument he has is "Evolution can't do this, therefore creationism is true."

      He is truly the Dunning Kruger poster child.

      Delete
    6. Creationist "logic", a la Otangelo "The Liar" Grasso:

      If God can create a universe, and life, its peanuts for him to make a snake and a donkey talk.

      Well can't argue with. Someone gullible enough to believe an invisible spook magically poofed the universe into existence, based on no evidence other than a story included in a book of ancient mythology, will have no trouble believing in talking snakes and donkeys.

      But that doesn't make any of those beliefs any the less absurd, does it now?

      Here's one for you, Otangelo:

      If God can create the universe, he can also make snakes and donkeys that can talk.

      However, snakes and donkeys can't talk.

      Therefore, God cannot create a universe.

      What do you think, Otangelo? Is that a valid argument? Is it sound? Let's see how smart you are. Don't be shy.

      Delete
    7. By all means, but i believe.....

      Clever Hans had more brain than our house keeping troll.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans

      Delete
  4. "where is the actual science?"

    Suspicion is good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Otangelo - Does Gluconeogenesis not depend on mitochondria, the cytoplasm, and the cell membrane amongst other molecules?

    Larry - It certainly doesn't depend on mitochondria! The fact that you ask such a question shows me that you absolutely refuse to listen to anything I say.

    If you are willing to accept everything I've said above and correct your Facebook pages and your website pages, then we can discuss the rest of your question. I can't do that knowing that you probably won't listen to anything I say.


    Well Larry, you omitted to answer a very important point: the dependence of Gluconeogenesis, or any life system within a cell, on the protective membrane. While your speculations might be abusing to some, they are still dependent on the assumption that cell membrane already exists. Without the membrane everything breaks down and can't function or evolve.

    So, Otangelo's point is valid.

    Here is why:
    No cell possesses the ability to synthesize a membrane from scratch.
    The fact is that cell membrane synthesis requires preexisting cell membrane. This is another paradox among many that people like you think will just go away...

    BTW: Larry, are you an evolutionary biologist by any chance?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sure we could have an interesting discussion about the origin of life and membranes but not with Otangelo Grasso. His past behavior indicates that he will never accept facts that contradict things he said earlier.

      He will never engage in a serious debate because he's incapable of following a logical train of thought and he's incapable of ever conceding a point.

      He won't even admit that the earliest forms of life got along very well without mitochondria because that would be admitting that he made a mistake.

      Delete
    2. Larry,
      you vandalized and deleted my answer above to Judmarc about the possible mechanisms prior to DNA replication to explain the origin of life.

      No, it was neither spam, nor plagiarized. Now i would like you to explain to your audience here what mechanisms that account for the origin of life, once design is excluded.

      Did i assert somewhere that bacterias had mitochondria ?

      I am still waiting for you to explain why the Dunning Kruger is strong in my response to your claim that glycogen was a possible nutrition source on early earth...... As far as i know, there were no Chemoautotrophs at this stage able to capture and fix CO2?

      I have yet to find a scientific paper that makes the same claim. Could you provide one ?

      At Facebook you made your last assertion, namely that the hydrothermal vent theory is the most " ajour ".

      I provided you at FB a link with a list of problems and why the idea does not withstand scrutiny. What about you address these issues, and explain why the objections are not pertinent ?

      Delete
    3. Or here's a thought, Otangelo: Why don't you stop polluting the internet with your plagiarized nonsense, and just shut up and listen when your intellectual superiors try to teach you something.

      Delete
    4. "I am still waiting for you to explain why the Dunning Kruger is strong in my response to your claim that glycogen was a possible nutrition source on early earth...... As far as i know, there were no Chemoautotrophs at this stage able to capture and fix CO2?"

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1693102/

      Life is thought to have started with chemoautotrophy for fucks sake, that's the whole point. The oldest phylogenetically reconstructed metabolism is a chemoautotrophic CO2 fixing Acetyl-CoA pathway.

      The physiology and habitat of the last universal common ancestor.
      Weiss MC1, Sousa FL, Mrnjavac N, Neukirchen S, Roettger M, Nelson-Sathi S, Martin WF.
      "Abstract
      The concept of a last universal common ancestor of all cells (LUCA, or the progenote) is central to the study of early evolution and life's origin, yet information about how and where LUCA lived is lacking. We investigated all clusters and phylogenetic trees for 6.1 million protein coding genes from sequenced prokaryotic genomes in order to reconstruct the microbial ecology of LUCA. Among 286,514 protein clusters, we identified 355 protein families (~0.1%) that trace to LUCA by phylogenetic criteria. Because these proteins are not universally distributed, they can shed light on LUCA's physiology. Their functions, properties and prosthetic groups depict LUCA as anaerobic, CO2-fixing, H2-dependent with a Wood-Ljungdahl pathway, N2-fixing and thermophilic. LUCA's biochemistry was replete with FeS clusters and radical reaction mechanisms. Its cofactors reveal dependence upon transition metals, flavins, S-adenosyl methionine, coenzyme A, ferredoxin, molybdopterin, corrins and selenium. Its genetic code required nucleoside modifications and S-adenosyl methionine-dependent methylations. The 355 phylogenies identify clostridia and methanogens, whose modern lifestyles resemble that of LUCA, as basal among their respective domains. LUCA inhabited a geochemically active environment rich in H2, CO2 and iron. The data support the theory of an autotrophic origin of life involving the Wood-Ljungdahl pathway in a hydrothermal setting."


      Maybe your "research" is crap?

      Delete
    5. Otangelo deceptively copy-pastes from a powerpoint presentation, the following quote from Alexander Oparin regarding the primordial soup: "The high concentrations of water on the early Earth would have diluted reactants, diffused away products, AND inhibited condensation reactions".

      But that particular quote he inserts as the beginning of his webpage page on hydrothermal vent theories. It doesn't apply to hydrothermal vents. That's the whole fucking point of hydrothermal vents. Oparin was addressing the issue of forming a primordial soup in a lake, or the open ocean.

      In the pores of submarine mineral precipitates, thermophoresis and convection currents act to concentrate reactants. All of them. Nucleotides, amino acids, their precursors. Here's some light reading:

      Priye A, Yu Y, Hassan YA, Ugaz VM. Synchronized chaotic targeting and acceleration of surface chemistry in prebiotic hydrothermal microenvironments. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017 Jan 24. pii: 201612924. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1612924114.]

      Keil L1, Hartmann M1, Lanzmich S1, Braun D1. Probing of molecular replication and accumulation in shallow heat gradients through numerical simulations. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2016 Jul 27;18(30):20153-9. [doi: 10.1039/c6cp00577b.]

      Niether D, Afanasenkau D, Dhont JK, Wiegand S. Accumulation of formamide in hydrothermal pores to form prebiotic nucleobases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Apr 19;113(16):4272-7. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1600275113.]

      Mast CB, Schink S, Gerland U, Braun D. Escalation of polymerization in a thermal gradient. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 May 14;110(20):8030-5. [doi: 10.1073/pnas.1303222110.]

      Budin I1, Bruckner RJ, Szostak JW. Formation of protocell-like vesicles in a thermal diffusion column. J Am Chem Soc. 2009 Jul 22;131(28):9628-9. [doi: 10.1021/ja9029818.]

      Baaske P1, Weinert FM, Duhr S, Lemke KH, Russell MJ, Braun D. Extreme accumulation of nucleotides in simulated hydrothermal pore systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 29;104(22):9346-51. [DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0609592104]

      Delete
    6. Mikkel, Otangelo did say "As far as I know," and it's quite evident he doesn't know about the research you cited, and other similar research papers. So I suppose he was telling the truth. :-)

      Delete
    7. The whole issue of this topic is if  a prebiotic world  had the  the basic building blocks for life. Before even there were ANY cells and organisms, a pre - requirement for life to start was the existence of matter to build proteins, lipids, carbohydrates ( sugars, glucose ), nucleic acids ,  and small molecules, ions, water, metals etc. Larry made a fool of himself by asserting that Glycogen was a possible energy source for metabolism, since it requires the synthesis through the complex cellular machinery ( which was not there, and its origin we try to explain ) . Since i pointed that out, he rather than admitting his grotesque mistake, tried to attack me and camouflage with name calling, hoping that nobody would observe. Unfortunately, it back fired.

      Delete
    8. LOL! The poster child for Dunning-Kruger syndrome just keeps digging himself into a deeper hole. Did you not understand this statement from Larry's post? It seems perfectly comprehensible to me:

      Chemoautotrophs exist and so do plants. Surely you are aware of the fact that you can grow plants from seeds by only supplying them with water, air, and minerals?

      Think about this a little bit. It means there are thousand of species that manage to thrive and reproduce (and make ATP) without external glucose. These include species that are incapable of photosynthesis. What does that mean? It means your question is ridiculous because there are obviously many ways to make ATP that have nothing to do with glycolysis. All you need to do is learn about them.


      No response to the revelation by Mikkel of yet another of your blatant lies, Otangelo? I think you need to re-read your Bible, particularly the part about the 10 Commandments.

      Delete
    9. Otangelo, I don't know at this point whether it's due to inability or willfullness, but this stuff (non-necessity for any "complex cellular machinery" that wasn't biochemically available at the time) is really obvious and you are just not getting it at all.

      Delete
    10. Things can never be obvious enough for Otangelo. He'll just keep cutting and pasting stuff that has nothing to do with anything. I wonder who he thinks he's impressing.

      Delete
    11. It seems there was some issue with the blog yesterday, I tried to post the same post a couple of times but it didn't appear before the third try. Now today, I see the previous attempts make their appearance. How weird.

      Delete
    12. @Mikkel

      You comments went to the spam file. I manually posted them as soon as I saw them.

      Delete
    13. Mikkel

      I agree, and deleted the quote. As Koonin writes

      http://www.pnas.org/content/104/22/9105.full

      An RNA-making reactor for the origin of life

      Two concomitant hydrodynamic processes, namely, thermal convection and thermophoresis along the temperature gradient, are shown to result in a >1,000-fold accumulation of mononucleotides near the bottom of a plugged pore.

      Of course, the results of Baaske et al. by no means put away all of the severe difficulties associated with the origin of life. In particular, at the earliest stages of biogenesis, the formation of mononucleotides, in the first place, remains problematic, and when it comes to the more advanced stages, a ribozyme replicase still is a hypothetical entity , and the evolutionary path to the translation systems remains essentially uncharted. Nevertheless, the intermediate stage, the transition from a solution of small organic molecules to a population of RNAs, now appears much less mysterious than before. Moreover, the hard combinatorial search for the extremely rare RNA sequences capable of catalyzing complex reactions, such as RNA replication, would be substantially facilitated in this setting through ligation of RNA molecules. Best of all, perhaps, the model of Baaske et al. suggests a straightforward experimental design, and such experiments, if successful, could bring us closer to an actual laboratory reproduction of the origin of life than anything done previously.

      Do you seriously think, you hace a case now ?

      Delete
    14. I just checked your page and you didn't delete anything at all.
      As I wrote in a post further down, the entire top section that speaks about the concentration problem is inapplicable, it only concerns the formation of a primordial soup in the open ocean. From the beginning and all the way down to and including the sentence that reads "Thus, it is clear, life could not have formed in the ocean. 2" should be entirely removed. All of it is wrong and irrelevant to the particular hypothesis your "article" is attempting to address.

      Koonin merely emphasizes there is a lot we don't know. I agree, there is a lot we don't know. What follows from that? Nothing.

      Delete
    15. Mikkel

      The section you mention was addressing various problems. One addressed the concentration problem, where the author didn't take into consideration the thermophoresis issue. So it was removed.

      The text which i did not remove, deals with the polymerisatoin problem, which is thermodynamically uphill, favoured in the absence of water; then the fact that these environments do not contain potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions, required in the citoplasm,

      If this hypothesis were true, we would have to be able to find the development of proto-cells at all stages at these vents. Even today. Why would the origin of life have happened only once ? It the alkalyne hydrothermal vents offer today the same environment as 3,5 bio years ago, and favour the emergency of life, we should observe this being a process happening constantly, and see protocells in all stages of development, and fully formed cells nearby. There is no trace of it. Why ?!!

      The concentration problem is like a drop in the ocean. Abiogenesis is impossible by all means. But since you search God like a thief the police station ( C.S.Lewis ) you don't care about reality. You care about finding reasons to justify your unbelief. No matter what.

      Delete
    16. Oh, look at that. Otangelo's lying like cheap rug. What a surprise. Not.

      Delete
    17. I found that there is no "concentration problem". The following experiment is mentioned in the theory that you and others have been ignoring.

      Origin Of Life Aquarium
      http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/

      Self-assembly did not "evolve". But that does make it impossible for living things to have been by the behavior of matter/energy first created.

      Delete
    18. "I found that there is no "concentration problem"."

      No, you did not find that. The article you refer to is nothing short of sappy. Proximity is just one of many monstrous problems. None of the origins proposals are the least bit realistic, much less probable. What they are is absurd, and what they are not is believable.

      Delete
  6. According to your story, Larry, first there was Gluconeogenesis in some bacterial cells, and - two or three new enzymes arose to replace and make it to an efficient glycolysis pathway after millions of years of evolution. You admitted of not knowing how this transition or replacement could have happened naturally ( humm.. genetic drift ?! ) . Further, you have not explained how Gluconeogenesis emerged in the first place. You failed to mention that a parallel initial precursor Glycolysis pathway would have been necessary, and you did not explain how it could have emerged either. This precursor system of Glycolysis had to be in place to synthesize the products required in a hypothetical proto cell ( supposed there were other complex chemical cellular reactions required already, somehow through natural pressure/self assembly of chemicals ( humm, did they have a inborn drive to become alive and start self replication , somehow ??! ....).

    As i have mentioned at my library, there is a HUDGE UNBRIDGEABLE GAP between unspecified metal catalysts performing glucose or similar substrate production, as the paper " The widespread role of non-enzymatic reactions in cellular metabolism " asserts - , and parallel another identical system ( convergence development already at this stage ? - amazing !! ) as precursor of Glycolysis, to a transition to the highly complex specific enzymes required in both pathways. How could unguided , random chemical reactions provide a compelling explanation to that question ? Both pathways, Gluconeogenesis, and Glycolysis, use about ten highly specified complex enzymes, each exercising very different tasks. Since there was no evolution at this stage, the emergence would have had to happen by random chance. There was no energy to form polypeptide assemblage and interlinking without these enzymes. Lets assume that the average size of each enzime was 500 amino acids. In some miraculous way, they would have had to be all selected to be only left handed, the 20 different amino acids used for life would have had to be selected amongst many others, ( how they were available, amongst fixed nitrogen etc etc. is another story ) and then assemble in the right sequence through peptide bonds . There is a hudge gap that has to be filled between " modern " polypeptide formation through ribosomes, mRNA, and tRNA's, and supposed primordial amino chain formations without this advanced machinery. How could the gap be closed ? Not only are prebiotic mechanisms unlikely, but the transition would have required the emergence of a prebiotic specific mechanism and afterwards transition from one mechanism to the other extant today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot teach you if you are unwilling to learn.

      Delete
    2. Laurence

      i am learning a lot...

      go ahead.

      thanks.

      Delete
    3. This is the same typical shit as always. Rather than admit to and correct his deceptive mistake on his website, Otangelo simply proceeds to change the subject and copy-paste another wall of text full of fundamental errors, fallacious appeals to authority, misrepresentations and lies.

      Delete
    4. Do you really believe your mistakes have not already been pointed out to you, Otangelo? Are you really that stupid?

      Delete
  7. Laurent Boiteau Prebiotic Chemistry: From Simple Amphiphiles to Protocell Models, page 3:
    Spontaneous self-assembly occurs when certain compounds associate through noncovalent hydrogen bonds, electrostatic forces, and nonpolar interactions that stabilize orderly arrangements of small and large molecules. The argument that chemical reactions in a primordial soup would not act upon pure chance, and that chemistry is not a matter of "random chance and coincidence , finds its refutation by the fact that the information stored in DNA is not constrained by chemistry. Yockey shows that the rules of any communication system are not derivable from the laws of physics. He continues : “there is nothing in the physicochemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.” In other words, nothing in nonliving physics or chemistry obeys symbolic instructions. So, to find functional enzymes in sequence space is not determined by chemical reactions.

    A short protein molecule of 150 amino acids, the probability of building a 150 amino acids chain in which all linkages are peptide linkages would be roughly 1 chance in 10^45.
    Lets assume a average size of each enzyme in both pathways of about 500 amino acids. That would result in the possibility to get all these enzymes after one of 10^10000 trial and error attempts. That is ten with 10.000 zeroes. If we add the odds to get the right interlinking of the enzymes to get a functional metabolic network, the picture becomes even less remotely possible. It should be evident that chance is not a capable mechanism to come up with just one of the several metabolic pathways required for a first organism.

    http://www.doesgodexist.org/NovDec09/Information-Function.html
    Literature from those who posture in favor of creation abounds with examples of the tremendous odds against chance producing a meaningful code. For instance, the estimated number of elementary particles in the universe is 10^80. The most rapid events occur at an amazing 10^45 per second. Thirty billion years contains only 10^18 seconds. By totaling those, we find that the maximum elementary particle events in 30 billion years could only be 10^143. Yet, the simplest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium, has 470 genes that code for 470 proteins that average 347 amino acids in length. The odds against just one specified protein of that length are 1:10^451.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Setting sequence-length to 500, and using the entire english alphabet and pressing "generate" on this random sequence generator will produce a sequence more improbable than that utterly idiot calculation about "maximum elementary particle events" says is possible. What use is that calculation, then? It doesn't tell you what can happen or how unlikely it, or it's alternatives, is.

      Delete
    2. Mikkel

      your logical fallacy is evident. Maybe you find out by yourself, why.

      Delete
  8. Of course, you can now scream ans say : the prebiotic soup is not the ultimate proposal, the hydrothermal vent story is, then, please point out how the problems mentioned at my library at the topic of

    The hydrothermal-vent theory, and why it fails

    could be solved....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Otangelo,

      RumCrooked has been to the vents and so were the vent-religious.

      What's your objective? Are you trying to change or mold the "rock"?

      BTW: Otangelo; are you a religious man?

      If yes, please tell me why not everyone believed Jesus was a son of God when he raised people from the dead? (if the Bible were a fiction, why would anybody record events that were extraordinary and yet not everyone believed they were from God)?

      Delete
    2. Jass

      i don't care if someone accepts or shares my views.
      As for my "religious" beliefs, i follow the one from Nazareth.

      Delete
    3. Otangelo Grasso says,

      i don't care if someone accepts or shares my views.

      That's not the way it looks to everyone else. It looks like you care VERY MUCH about what you write on your website. It looks like you will go to extraordinary lengths to avoid admitting that your views may be wrong.

      Delete
    4. Larry

      1. I am still waiting for you to point out where in your view i should correct the information at my library.
      2. If you think you are gaining credibility behaving the way you do, i would say: you might be terribly mistaken. In order for you to have a solid case, you need to be able to defend it. Thats not what you are doing. But thats your problem.
      3. I have clear goals. They are as follows :

      We christians are often called out and acused of trying to convert atheists to christianity. They do however not understand, that we have a command by the lord Jesus Christ : to spread the clear teachings of Jesus and the Apostles of the Gospel (Good News) with love and kindness, and make disciples. To preach the gospel, is one thing. A true religion / world view is spread by using evidence and logical arguments, showing kindness and charity even to enemies, discussion and fair debates, allowing people to make up their minds and exercise their free choice to accept or reject the beliefs,and being able to point to a perfect sinless Messiah as an example of how we should try to act and treat others! We are not asked to interefer in the decisionmaking of the receiver of our message. We are called to make the gospel of Gods grace, love, justice, forgiveness and eternal life known. If someone by deliberate decision wants to become a christian, then we are called to instruct the new convert in his new faith. The christian has good reasons to confess his faith, first, to obey the Lords command, and secondly, to give others the oportunity to find salvation and eternal life.

      4. In regard of your motivations, i think they are utterly senseless.

      Here, i write, why :

      Why do postive, active, strong militant atheists promote naturalism with such fervor and time spending ?

      http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t2379-why-do-postive-active-strong-militant-atheists-promote-naturalism-with-such-fervor-and-time-spending

      Delete
    5. "1. I am still waiting for you to point out where in your view i should correct the information at my library. "

      I already gave you corrections above. Go right now, to your "virtual library" page on hydrothermal vent theory and why it fails and delete the entire top section that speaks about the concentration problem. All of it is inapplicable, it only concerns the formation of a primordial soup in the open ocean. From the beginning and all the way down to and including the sentence that reads "Thus, it is clear, life could not have formed in the ocean. 2" should be entirely removed. All of it is wrong and irrelevant to the particular hypothesis your "article" is attempting to address.

      This is your chance to show you are interested in truth, rather than christian apologetics. Correct your site now!

      Delete
  9. A cumulative case for the God of the bible

    http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1753-a-cumulative-case-for-theism



    We have no access through our senses to prove empirically what ultimate reality is. If God exists, or not, cannot be known scientifically. Thats why it makes no sense to ask for proofs of Gods existence. All we can do, is evaluate, and figure out the preponderance of the evidence, where it leads to.

    The steps of progression to elaborate a epistemologically solid world view goes as follows:
    1. Starting point with the recognition that agnosticism or ignorance has no justification in the age of information.
    2. Defining a solid epistemological framework, excluding scientism or verificationism, and permitting a holistic examination of evidence including philsophical and theological considerations. The best methodology to make meaningful inferences and conclude the best, most accurate world view is based on the current wealth of knowledge of operational and historical sciences , philosophy and theism.
    3. Disposition to analyse the evidence as much honest and unbiased as possible, permitting it to lead wherever it is. A unbiased startingpoint for inquiry of world views and explanations of origins is essential in order to come as close as possible to gain a realistic understanding of reality that includes physics and metaphysics. That means proper understanding of science, philosophical and theological explanations and searching for truth without eliminating possible theistic implications a priori.
    4. Research of falsifiable scientific evidence and philosophical considerations which after careful evaluation point to Intelligence as a better mechanism to explain our origins than naturalistic explanations.
    5. The inference of intelligent design / creationism leads to deism, theism or pantheism.
    6. Philosophical considerations lead to agnostic theism
    7. Specifics about various evidences leads to the conclusion of Infinite Creator.
    8. Comparative religions and historical evidence points to God of the Hebrews/Abraham.
    9. Internal evidence constrains the choice of Judaism. Islam, Christianity, and born-again Christianity.
    10. How we proceed in the cumulative case for Christianity is a much more detailed step. Ultimately we are not talking about "proof" like in repeated experimentation...but rather a preponderance of the evidence. There's no empirical proof for the Resurrection or the Virgin birth. These too are based on faith and the cumulative case made for Christianity. Ultimately it is the conviction of the Holy Spirit to believe in the miracles of Jesus and His Lordship/Deity.
    11. Finally, born again christianity is the most consistent view.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If God exists, or not, cannot be known scientifically."

      This is an unnecessary concession.

      Delete
    2. Otangelo, by now this should for you be an easy question for you:

      How does "intelligent cause" work?

      Delete
    3. And by the way the following only applies to those who follow the tenets of philosophical naturalism, which I do not:

      If God exists, or not, cannot be known scientifically.

      Delete
    4. This is an unnecessary concession.

      As a first step, please provide scientific evidence supporting virgin birth of a male human child.

      Delete
    5. And by the way the following only applies to those who follow the tenets of philosophical naturalism, which I do not...."

      Not so. I do not ascribe to philosophical naturalism (I'm agnostic on the question) but I also disagree with the claim that the existence of gods cannot be evaluated scientifically.

      Delete
    6. I do not ascribe to philosophical naturalism (I'm agnostic on the question) but I also disagree with the claim that the existence of gods cannot be evaluated scientifically.

      While there are some aspects of Larry's overall position I disagree with, I do think it's nonsense that science somehow fundamentally cannot evaluate whether a phenomenon exists or has existed, simply by dint of calling that phenomenon "supernatural" or "immaterial" or [insert your favorite term here].

      If the Book of Revelations came true before our eyes tomorrow, science would have to accommodate that. That's the cool thing about science, you get to examine how the universe works, and if it shows you something surprising, you've had an extraordinary day (maybe an extraordinary lifetime).

      Delete
    7. Objection: It's not the job of science to investigate the supernatural.
      Answer: There are basically two possible mechanisms that explain the origin of the natural world. A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter. Science is perfectly apt to find out if the natural world points to the requirement of intelligent action to setup the biological and biochemical systems we observe in nature. Intelligent Design theory does not pretend to explain how intelligence implemented the material world, nor who the designer is. That belongs to the realm of philosophic and theological inquiry.

      Delete
    8. Intelligent Design theory does not pretend to explain how intelligence implemented the material world, nor who the designer is. That belongs to the realm of philosophic and theological inquiry.

      Why is that?

      Suppose a probe to the planet Mars found evidence of artifacts there that could only have been produced by an intelligent civilization. Would you expect the scientists who made that discovery to say "Well, we're not going to try figure out who might have produced them. That belongs to the realm of philosophic and theological inquiry"?

      Only an absolute idiot would think that. Or, should I say, an absolute IDiot.

      Delete
    9. "11. Finally, born again christianity is the most consistent view."

      If you were born to Hindu parents and raised Hindu, you would have an equally contrived bullet list for why Hinduism is the most consistent view.

      "Intelligent Design theory does not pretend to explain how intelligence implemented the material world, nor who the designer is. That belongs to the realm of philosophic and theological inquiry."

      ID doesn't explain anything. With no explanation of how intelligence 'implemented' the material world and no clue who the designer is, the designer becomes a dispensable, superfluous add-on.

      But tell us about your designer. Is it omniscient? Omnipotent? Benevolent?

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    11. Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor ?

      If it is plausible for random processes to create something living, there should be no problem for the intelligent minds of those that recognized it to be able to replicate the process.

      If it is plausible for random processes, there should be no problem for the minds of those that recognized the process to replicate it shouldn't be?

      Delete
    12. "Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self replicating machine. . . ? . . . . The cell is far more complex than the most complex machine made by man, and the simplest cell stores as much information as contained in a CD."

      OG will never AT LEAST STOP and THINK that maybe the origin of cells is not like a tornado going through a junkyard and producing a machine. Maybe there are other naural processes involved. OG has read about this, not doubt at length, but dismisses the possibility. Oh, well.

      Delete
    13. If it is plausible for random processes to create something living, there should be no problem for the intelligent minds of those that recognized it to be able to replicate the process.

      You've got it wrong. If life arises from a naturalistic process that requires hundreds of thousands of years, then it would be impossible for that process to be replicated by intelligent beings that only live a few decades.

      OTOH, if life was produced by intelligent design, then intelligent designers should be able to reproduce it. Right?

      Delete
    14. bwilson295

      what possibilites are that ?
      I answered to this objection already, but Larry had the brilliant idea to classify my response as spam, and deleted it.....

      Delete
    15. what possibilites are that ?

      Evolution, obviously. Which, as your surely know by now, is not remotely a random process akin to a tornado blowing thru a junkyard.

      Delete
    16. "Would you say that it is plausible that a tornado over a junkyard could produce a self replicating machine, like John von Neumann's Universal Constructor ?"

      Evolutionary theory claims nothing of the sort, nor does it require enzymes of 150 aa in length to suddenly poof into existence simultaneously (things poofing magically into existence is creationism, not science). In any case, your absurd caricatures of evolution don't provide any evidence whatsoever that a supernatural designer did ANYTHING. Because you have no empirical evidence. So you just keep setting up those straw men and....

      "Although this is not a conclusive proof of the existence of God,"

      It's no proof at all of god.

      "it should AT LEAST make one STOP and THINK about the possibility of the existence of God...."

      I think about it quite a bit, actually. If you want to sway me, provide some proof. I don't accept your 'philosophical' musings as proof. If I were to advance an argument for the evolution of Cetaceans, with all the empirical evidence we have for the evolution of Cetaceans from an Artiodactyl ancestor, and concluded that according to evolutionary theory they sure look evolved to me, you would reject that immediately. Yet I am supposed to take your biased googling and quote mining, with ZERO empirical evidence to back it up, just that it looks 'designed' to you, and accept it? Sorry, no. You want me to consider the existence of god, provide some evidence.

      And you never answered my question:


      Tell us about your designer, OG. Is it omniscient? Omnipotent? Benevolent?

      Delete
    17. There are basically two possible mechanisms that explain the origin of the natural world. A intelligent designer

      Which explains nothing, but do we really have to ride on the "Who designed the designer" merry-go-round with Otangelo again?

      Delete
    18. Otangelo states:

      Objection: It's not the job of science to investigate the supernatural.
      Answer: There are basically two possible mechanisms that explain the origin of the natural world. A intelligent designer, through power, information input, wisdom, will, or natural, non-guided, non-intelligent mechanisms, that is : random chance or physical necessity, long periods of time, mutation and natural selection, or self organisation of matter. Science is perfectly apt to find out if the natural world points to the requirement of intelligent action to setup the biological and biochemical systems we observe in nature. Intelligent Design theory does not pretend to explain how intelligence implemented the material world, nor who the designer is. That belongs to the realm of philosophic and theological inquiry.


      Either your "realm of philosophic and theological inquiry" statement or the Discovery Institute's "Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory" statement is false advertising:

      From: http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/

      "2. Is intelligent design science?
      Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that ....."



      You are at least agreeing that the Discovery Institute never really had a "scientific theory". But like them you did not know or care about how deceptive that is.

      Delete
    19. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    20. Without code there can be no self-replication.

      Crystals, dude. And that's just for starters. There are an approximately infinite number of examples of self-replication in ordinary everyday chemistry. So next time you're out walking and see a quartz crystal, bend down to hear it whisper "You're so very wrong, Otangelo!"

      Delete
    21. OG,

      "Without code there can be no self-replication. Without self-replication you can’t have reproduction. Without reproduction you can’t have evolution or natural selection."

      Your logical fallacies are evident. This is a god of the gaps argument and argument from personal incredulity. Your armchair musings do not disprove evolution or prove that it is impossible. Your chicken and the egg arguments are worthless, because you have no clue how life started on earth. Therefore you cannot back up any of your premises.

      It is obvious how you got yourself in this jam, creationists have been doing it for centuries. Do you see where you have gone wrong?

      And you still haven't answered my question. You want me to consider the superfluous addition of a supernatural being who magically created the Universe by unknown mechanisms? You could at least approach the burden of proof you demand of evolution and give us an idea of how that happened.

      Tell us about your designer, OG. Is it omniscient? Omnipotent? Benevolent?

      Delete
    22. OG,

      "That means, evolution was not a driving force and acting for the emergence and origin of the first living organisms."

      This may be the closest you have come to a logically defensible statement, although it is speculative. And if it were found to be true, it would not compromise the theory of evolution in any way.

      Delete
    23. Judmarc wrote:

      "Crystals, dude"

      https://phys.org/news/2012-05-primitive-mechanism-chemical-info-self-replication.html

      In this alternate version, tiny DNA tile crystals consisting of many copies of a piece of information are first grown, then broken into a few pieces by mechanically-induced scission, or force. The new crystal bits contain all the information needed to keep copying the sequence. Each piece then begins to replicate its information and grow until broken apart again—without the help of enzymes, an essential ingredient in biological sequence replication.



      Delete
    24. Chris

      sorry, no, my views are not based on ignorance, nor incredulity.

      1. You check, and find no money in your wallet.
      2. Its a argument of knowledge to say: I have no money.
      3. The same happens in biology. You checked, but coded information and irreducible complex systems cannot emerge naturally.
      4. Hence, the argument is from knowledge, not from ignorance.

      As a proponent of natural mechanisms, you might use words like "incredulity" to make it seem that i am arguing about abiogenesis being impossible because i can't believe it. But the main point is that it has never been seen to happen, and the odds speak against it. Abiogenesis research has been humiliated in face of the challenge and is unable to solve the riddle. It seems as you try to refute my point based on .... guess what .... philosophical dogmatic naturalism. As it seems, to you, there must be a natural explanation, no matter where the evidence points to.

      What about you show a little compassion towards Larry and help him out, as he is unable to explain how Gluconeogenesis and Glycolysis emerged by natural means, and unable to back up his mockery towards " IDiots" and hide his ultracrepidarianism any further?

      Sorry, but you cannot extend evolution, which many proponents of naturalism wish to be almost all powerful and replace God, as explanation for the origin of life. It does not belong there. Evolution is at best a mechanism to explain micro adaptation of living beings to the environment, and mostly a pre-programmed process.

      Delete
    25. As a proponent of natural mechanisms, you might use words like "incredulity" to make it seem that i am arguing about abiogenesis being impossible because i can't believe it. But the main point is that it has never been seen to happen, and the odds speak against it.

      So, Otangelo, you've actually seen life magically poofed into existence by an invisible spook? Cool! Tell us all about it.

      Delete
    26. Otangelo,

      Let's see if you can get just one little point that contradicts what you claim:

      "But the main point is that it [abiogenesis] has never been seen to happen, and the odds speak against it"

      Odds? It's impossible to calculate the odds for abiogenesis Otangelo. The reason that it is impossible is that nobody knows the factors that have to be taken into account. All "odds" calculations that say it's "impossible" come from creationists holding to some weird assumption. For example, that a whole functioning modern protein had to arise from no other process but random assemblage from some soup of amino-acids. The assumption is clearly wrong, and the odds calculation's message is just that such was not the way life started. So what? Nobody studying abiogenesis thinks that the first life form had modern proteins that arose by the random assemblage from a soup of amino-acids.

      Did you get that at all?

      "Abiogenesis research has been humiliated in face of the challenge and is unable to solve the riddle"

      This is a pretty stupid claim. Sorry, but it is. Abiogenesis research humiliated? What the hell does that even mean? Science doesn't work on the basis of laughter. That research hasn't solve the problem doesn't mean that anything has been "humiliated," it just means that the riddle is still to be solved. Nothing else. What do you expect after billions of years since the beginning of life? That we would know all the factors out of pure luck or magic? Science is not magical Otangelo. Science requires lots of patience, lots of experiments, lots of figuring out. If you get to understand this, you'd stop pretending to know things you cannot possibly know, like the odds for life starting naturally.

      I'm leaving alone the fantasies that you believe for now, checking if you might try and understand.

      So, instead of trying to "refute" my points, what about you show me that you've got it? That you understand why I'm not so worried or surprised that the problem for the origin of life is not solved yet (or maybe not even during my lifetime). That you understand now that the "odds" for life starting naturally cannot be calculated.

      Delete
    27. OG,

      "3. The same happens in biology. You checked, but coded information and irreducible complex systems cannot emerge naturally."

      You have no evidence IC systems cannot emerge naturally. In the 20+ years since Behe published his IC book, a glorified godofthegaps argument, never once has he conducted a single experiment to demonstrate IC systems cannot evolve. In fact, there is no evidence of this.

      "4. Hence, the argument is from knowledge, not from ignorance."

      Premise 3. is false, hence your argument is not from knowledge. You have no such knowledge. I already explained this to you above.

      "As a proponent of natural mechanisms, you might use words like "incredulity" to make it seem that i am arguing about abiogenesis being impossible because i can't believe it."

      I don't use those words to make it _seem_ like you are making that logical fallacy, I am telling you that you are. I explained this to you above.

      "But the main point is that it has never been seen to happen, and the odds speak against it."

      And you have never seen a supernatural being intelligently design anything. At least we know natural processes are real. So the odds against supernatural intelligent designers can only be more remote (although as has already been pointed out to you in this thread, you have no logical basis for estimating the odds of any of these things happening).

      "It seems as you try to refute my point based on .... guess what .... philosophical dogmatic naturalism. As it seems, to you, there must be a natural explanation, no matter where the evidence points to."

      Not at all. As I have already pointed out to you in this thread, I am perfectly willing to consider supernatural explanations. Just provide some empirical evidence. You have no evidence pointing to supernatural intelligent designers.

      "Sorry, but you cannot extend evolution, which many proponents of naturalism wish to be almost all powerful and replace God, as explanation for the origin of life."

      Evolutionary theory was never intended to explain the origin of life, so you have no point here. I also object to your accusation that I am trying to replace God with evolution. I hold the provisional conclusion that there are no gods, based on the lack of evidence for them. Therefore I don't need to replace gods with anything.

      You insist on running over the same ground and I grow weary. Are you going to:
      a) tell us about the intelligent designer (as I have asked you repeatedly) and how you know these things, or
      b) simply reiterate the same failed arguments again.

      Delete
    28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    29. Chris wrote:

      You have no evidence IC systems cannot emerge naturally. In the 20+ years since Behe published his IC book, a glorified godofthegaps argument, never once has he conducted a single experiment to demonstrate IC systems cannot evolve. In fact, there is no evidence of this.

      You seem to be not well informed :
      http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/10/response_to_barbara_forrests_k_7002560.html
      We put, knock out one part, put a good copy of the gene back in, and they can swim. By definition the system is irreducibly complex. We've done that with all 35 components of the flagellum, and we get the same effect.
      (Kitzmiller Transcript of Testimony of Scott Minnich pgs. 99-108, Nov. 3, 2005, emphasis added)

      "And you have never seen a supernatural being intelligently design anything."

      We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design. If investigators know that someone was deliberately killed, is their conclusion invalidated because they don't yet know exactly who did it and how?
      When a detective arrives at the crime scence, and sees a bullet in the chest of the victim, and no arm nearby that could be a hint to suicide, the detective can with a degree of certainty conclude the victim was shot in the chest and killed. So its a murder crime scence. Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.

      "Not at all. As I have already pointed out to you in this thread, I am perfectly willing to consider supernatural explanations. Just provide some empirical evidence."

      Haha. Do you have empirical evidence, that natural, aka non intelligent mechanisms can create life ?

      "You have no evidence pointing to supernatural intelligent designers."

      Check the topic at my library: 125 reasons to believe in God
      Pick ANY of them, and privide a better, more compelling explanation based on naturalism, and you have a go. Just one.

      Delete
    30. So you went with b) then. Just sad.

      Delete
    31. OG is promoting his "125 Pieces of Stupidity I Just Extracted From My Rectum" again? Has he forgotten what happened the last time he brought those up here?

      Delete
    32. Otangelo,

      You're still making the same mistake I told you you're making. It doesn't matter how many quotes you bring, all of them are talking about modern life, not about original life. Let me show you:

      Kooning calculated a minimal gene set from modern prokaryotic genomes. That cannot possibly represent original life. That can only represent a minimal set for a modern life form.

      Huck is also talking about modern cells. So, again, that cannot tell us anything about the first life form. Very same problem!

      "... then the chance to get this arrangement would be 10 to the 164th power ..."

      Why would you do exactly the calculation I told you is based on stupid assumptions? Again, original life did not have to be like modern life at all. Modern life is not the same as the original life. What part of this is so hard for you to understand?

      "You forget Harold Urey, Richard Dawkins, Paul Davies, Koonin, Mondore, Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D, Arthur V. Chadwick, Ph.D.,Michael Denton, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, Vaneechoutte and many others, which do not buy into that assertion."

      Really? I double, triple, and google-plex dare you to find them saying that the original life form(s) had modern proteins that were assembled randomly from a soup of amino-acids.

      "What about, you ask Larry to introduce you to basic molecular biology ?"

      I know basic molecular biology. Nowhere does it say that the original life had modern proteins that assembled randomly from a soup of amino-acids.

      "New evidence suggests that LUCA was a sophisticated organism after all ...."

      LUCA Otangelo! Do you know the difference between LUCA and the original life form? Of course a LUCA would have to share something with modern cells, if it's the organism where life-as-we-know-it would have descended from. But LUCA is the most recent common ancestor, not the most ancient of life forms. You continue making the very same mistake I told you about.

      Do you understand now that using modern cells to calculate "odds" is simply nonsensical? Modern cells cannot give us an estimate of anything, except that the first life form(s) could not have been like modern life forms. That's it.

      Do you get it now?

      Delete
    33. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    34. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    35. "The simplest cell must be a self replicating factory, with various functions."

      No. Those would be the requirements for a free-living cell that can fully support it's own existence. But many of these processes have analogues in nonliving physical processes. For example, replication of genetic polymers can be driven entirely by fluctuating warm-cold cycles. The same is true for groth and division of fatty acid vesicles. Basic biochemical reactions can be catalyzed by inorganic minerals and metals.

      "If the first cell misses one of these functions, it can't survive. Even if it misses just ONE of many life-essential proteins, like topoisomerase II which disentagles DNA strands during division, or helicase in DNA replication, life can't reproduce."

      That's just something you blindly claim. Just because you can say "it had to come together all at once" doesn't make that claim into a fact. As just stated, a basic cycling hot-cold temperature will spontaneously disentangle and anneal double stranded DNA.

      Delete
    36. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    37. (From various sources, so i won't cite them ):

      Really, Otangelo? You think if you plagiarize a whole bunch of sources at the same time, it's no longer plagiarism?

      Delete
    38. If the first cell misses one of these functions, it can't survive.

      And, by the same argument: If you remove the electronic fuel injection system from your car, it won't run.

      However, the first electronic fuel injector was not introduced until 1967.

      Therefore, according to Otangelo, no cars existed before 1967.

      Because he's an IDiot.

      And further evidence of his IDiocy: He's going to try refute this argument by saying that cars are designed.

      Delete
    39. Otangelo,

      To avoid spamming, what about you just tell me one thing: do you understand the difference between LUCA and the original life forms. Check around before answering. After that, tell me if you got it now. No quotes allowed, just whether you get it or not. If not, what's the problem exactly? In your own words. Forget quotes. Your own words. Come on. You can do it!

      Delete
    40. Photo
      "Kooning calculated a minimal gene set from modern prokaryotic genomes. That cannot possibly represent original life. That can only represent a minimal set for a modern life form."


      How do you know this cannot represent original life?

      Delete
    41. Great example of creationist "logic", Bill:

      We cannot disprove that Kooning's minimal gene set represents original life.

      Therefore we must presume it does represent original life.

      And since such an organism could not have conceivably instantly arisen all at once, we must conclude that life was created by God (or, if you are being cagy, by an "intelligent designer") Rather than concluding that there must have been a number of earlier, simpler forms of life and proto-life.

      Is that what you consider "thinking", Bill?

      Delete
    42. Bill, do you understand the question photosynthesis asked your pal Otangelo, regarding the distinction between the LUCA and the earliest forms of life? Because seems to be part of what is confusing you, as well.

      Delete
    43. Larry thinks my post where i make fun of the most prolific spammer and troll, which posts are never deleted, deserves to remain, while the ones i posted this morning, that provided answers to the points that Chris and you made, had to be deleted. Crazy. If you or anyone wants further answers, i answer on Facebook.

      Delete
    44. I read those posts before they were deleted. The did not contain answers, as you claim, but just more of your inane and irrelevant spam, along with more plagiarized material. Larry is not only doing his readers a service by deleting them. He is also doing you a favour, by preventing you from embarrassing yourself more than you already have.

      Oh, and as far as your claim to provide answers on your Facebook page, that option is not open to me because you banned me for correcting some of the false information you insist on posting there. Just in case there was any doubt left about your rank hypocrisy.

      Delete
    45. LS
      "Bill, do you understand the question photosynthesis asked your pal Otangelo, regarding the distinction between the LUCA and the earliest forms of life? Because seems to be part of what is confusing you, as well."

      You are simply assuming something that is different then what the evidence shows. What is the basis of your assumptions?

      Delete
    46. Bill, you are aware that within the geneset of LUCA, there are additional phylogenies that point to an evolutionary history of that community of organisms too? For example, individual components of the translation system, such as the two classes of aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases, derive from an ancient pre-LUCA gene duplication.

      So no, Bill, he isn't "assuming" something contrary to the evidence. He's stating a conclusion derived from the evidence. We know very little about what life was like pre-LUCA, but we do know something about it. We know enough to know that LUCA itself had an evolutionary history, and evolved form even simpler life.

      Delete
    47. You are simply assuming something that is different then what the evidence shows. What is the basis of your assumptions?

      In building hypotheses, the scientists in this area are considering what is thought to be possible, based on the evidence of what has been observed to happen. We know some of the characteristics LUCA must have had due to observed characteristics of its descendants. The question then is what are the chemically possible (and among those, the most probable) ways to proceed from conditions prevailing in early Earth environments to those characteristics of LUCA?

      So not assuming, since we are not claiming to know the truth at this juncture (and we may well never know it), but hypothesizing from among possibilities.

      Otangelo claims to know more than the scientists, that all possible pathways are chemically impossible, based on "reasoning" that can only be called addled.

      I think that pretty well covers it, Bill. Any good science you can cite on the issue?

      Delete
    48. "all possible pathways" s/b "all potential pathways"

      Delete
    49. Mikkel,
      "Bill, you are aware that within the geneset of LUCA, there are additional phylogenies that point to an evolutionary history of that community of organisms too? For example, individual components of the translation system, such as the two classes of aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases, derive from an ancient pre-LUCA gene duplication."

      How do you know this? So there was a gene duplication prior to a translation system? How did they duplicate the gene?

      Delete
    50. You are simply assuming something that is different then what the evidence shows. What is the basis of your assumptions?

      What do you think the evidence shows re: the gene set of the earliest life forms? What evidence is there that they even possessed a "gene set"?

      You are merely confirming that you do not understand the difference between the LUCA and the earliest life forms. So why not just admit this and ask for clarification, rather than trying to cover up your ignorance with diversionary questions?

      Delete
    51. No Bill, read it again. Not prior to the translation system. But parts of the translation system derive from a duplication. Do you understand? There was already a translation system, a simpler one with fewer aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases. A gene duplication allowed the subsequent evolution of two classes of this enzyme. Prior to LUCA.

      Do you understand?

      Delete
    52. Mikkel
      "No Bill, read it again. Not prior to the translation system. But parts of the translation system derive from a duplication. Do you understand? There was already a translation system, a simpler one with fewer aminoacyl-tRNA-synthetases. A gene duplication allowed the subsequent evolution of two classes of this enzyme. Prior to LUCA.

      Do you understand?"

      I do understand. However we don't have evidence that this is what happened. It comes from the a-priori assumption that it started from a simpler beginning. None of us know what came before LUCA , what LUCA was like or if there was a LUCA. This is all conjecture based on materialist circular reasoning.

      Delete
    53. LS
      "You are merely confirming that you do not understand the difference between the LUCA and the earliest life forms. So why not just admit this and ask for clarification, rather than trying to cover up your ignorance with diversionary questions?"

      I look forward to your experimental evidence for this.

      Delete
    54. Bill,

      Even if you disagree that either ever existed, you should be able to understand the difference between a LUCA and the earliest life forms. I mean, conceptually speaking. If only you answered this, we would at least know that you have a brain. Otangelo doesn't want to answer because then he would have to delete half of the quotes from his "library." But you have nothing to lose.

      Again, we know you don't agree with either of them having existed at all. The question is, do you understand the difference between a LUCA and the earliest/original life forms? If so, what's the difference (again, conceptually, even if you don't agree that they existed).

      Delete
    55. "I do understand. However we don't have evidence that this is what happened."

      Yes we have Bill, it is the same kind of evidence that allows us to infer a LUCA. Comparative genetics allows us to construct phylogenies. Both for organisms in divergent lineages, and for individual genes families within a single lineage.

      "It comes from the a-priori assumption that it started from a simpler beginning."

      No Bill, that is not a necessary assumption.

      "None of us know what came before LUCA , what LUCA was like or if there was a LUCA. This is all conjecture based on materialist circular reasoning."

      Thank you for so succinctly stating your mistaken beliefs about evolutionary biology and the methods of phylogenetic inference. You said it and it made you feel better. That really showed us, that pile of assertions.

      Delete
    56. Photo
      "Again, we know you don't agree with either of them having existed at all. The question is, do you understand the difference between a LUCA and the earliest/original life forms? If so, what's the difference (again, conceptually, even if you don't agree that they existed)."

      I know we can have a self replicating entity with just under 500 genes. The rest is speculation. We also have no clear path from this organism to a eukaryotic cell except for wishful speculation.

      Delete
    57. Mikkel
      "Yes we have Bill, it is the same kind of evidence that allows us to infer a LUCA. Comparative genetics allows us to construct phylogenies. Both for organisms in divergent lineages, and for individual genes families within a single lineage. "

      I agree you can infer anything you want. What we are missing is a testable hypothesis.

      Delete
    58. So, Bill, is it your position that there would be no difference between genome of an organism in whose prior lineage there had been gene duplication, and one in which this had not happened? How do you come to such a conclusion?

      Delete
    59. LS
      "So, Bill, is it your position that there would be no difference between genome of an organism in whose prior lineage there had been gene duplication, and one in which this had not happened? How do you come to such a conclusion?"

      The simplest cell in the lab is about 500 genes. This is in the LAB. Is your claim that something simpler than this could survive the early earth?

      Delete
    60. Bill,

      Why is it so hard for you to just show that you understand the difference between those two concepts?

      From what you said, seems like you rather avoid it because you'd feel like you're admitting that the 500 genes, coming from studies on modern cells, would be a tad harder to hold. But what's the point of holding to such a point on faulty understanding? You'll always be perceived as ignorant of a difference that you seem to actually understand, which makes you dishonest, doesn't it?

      Delete
    61. The simplest cell in the lab is about 500 genes. This is in the LAB. Is your claim that something simpler than this could survive the early earth?

      Christ. Sometimes I wonder how you have the intellectual capacity to operate a computer keyboard, given the stupidity of some of he questions you ask.

      Is there nothing simpler on earth, right now at this moment, then a cell possessing a genome of 500 genes? I can't believe I even have to ask this question.

      Delete
    62. It comes from the a-priori assumption that it started from a simpler beginning.

      Because we have so much evidence of *more complex* creatures magically poofing into existence, right?

      No, there is evidence of simpler forms, such as the gene duplication Mikkel talked about. Then the question is whether we can get from conditions on the early Earth to these simpler forms (or to other even simpler forms such as early non-parasitic viruses, which researchers such as Koonin have discussed) through ordinary chemistry. That is all - scientific curiosity, no "wishful thinking" involved. Why does this natural scientific curiosity bother you so much you feel you need to insult it?

      Delete
    63. I just want to offer a small correction to what I said about a gene duplication as the source of the two classes of aminoactyl-tRNA-synthetases, since I wasn't sure if I remembered it correctly I went back and checked.

      The source is not thought to be a gene-duplication (I did misremember), but rather that both classes derive from the two opposite strands of the same gene. See for example this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4082485/.

      "Because amino acid activation is rate-limiting for uncatalyzed protein synthesis, it is a key puzzle in understanding the origin of the genetic code. Two unrelated classes (I and II) of contemporary aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases (aaRS) now translate the code. Observing that codons for the most highly conserved, Class I catalytic peptides, when read in the reverse direction, are very nearly anticodons for Class II defining catalytic peptides, Rodin and Ohno proposed that the two superfamilies descended from opposite strands of the same ancestral gene. This unusual hypothesis languished for a decade, perhaps because it appeared to be unfalsifiable."

      No doubt creationist will now quotemine that last sentence to death. Suffice it to say, I think you should read the whole paper.

      Delete
    64. Because we have so much evidence of *more complex* creatures magically poofing into existence, right?

      Or, for that matter, of 500 gene organisms being assembled from raw material by "intelligent designers".

      As is so often the case, the impediment under which creationists operate is not so much ignorance of basic biology, as it is lack of fundamental critical thinking skills. This does not only apply to underlings like Bill Cole, txpiper or Otangelo Grasso. Leaders of the movement are equally afflicted. e.g. Michael Behe, who undeniably knows a lot of biology, but does not understand elementary logic, so all his knowledge is useless.

      Delete
    65. Mikkel,
      That would actually end being a gene duplication (with a very interesting twist). (Amazing stuff!)

      Delete
    66. No doubt creationist will now quotemine that last sentence to death.

      Or just the last half of it, since the first half of the sentence noted apparent unfalsifiability was a reason it wasn't much considered by scientists as a piece of a candidate explanation ("languished") for a decade.

      Delete
    67. Photo
      "
      From what you said, seems like you rather avoid it because you'd feel like you're admitting that the 500 genes, coming from studies on modern cells, would be a tad harder to hold. But what's the point of holding to such a point on faulty understanding? You'll always be perceived as ignorant of a difference that you seem to actually understand, which makes you dishonest, doesn't it?"

      I simply think your claim is unsupported and not backed by any evidence that we are seeing. The evidence does not support the simple to complex concept. You can speculate all you want about whats going on below 500 genes but until you can test that the simpler version works there is no reason to make that the null hypothesis. Life is complex even in its simplest form.

      Delete
    68. What emerged first : The Ribosome, or Aminoacyl tRNA synthetases, or tRNA's ? Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase , or the genetic cipher ? What function would one have without the other?

      Delete
    69. I simply think your claim is unsupported and not backed by any evidence that we are seeing. The evidence does not support the simple to complex concept.

      Really? So why are you talking about laboratory experiments that show that complex forms of life can be made much more simple by eliminating genes unnecessary for survival? How is that not evidence of the "simple to complex concept"?

      You can speculate all you want about whats going on below 500 genes but until you can test that the simpler version works there is no reason to make that the null hypothesis. Life is complex even in its simplest form.

      But we are not talking about life. We're talking about pre-life, remember? So until you can show an example of a complex life form being created by an "intelligent designer" that is not itself alive, the null hypothesis shall remain that life arose thru the sort of physical and chemical processes that are known to occur and which underly every single phenomenon in the known universe.

      Get it?

      Delete
    70. The evidence does not support the simple to complex concept.

      You're kidding, right? Are you trying to deny common ancestry? If not, are you trying to deny the possibility of chemical processes taking place that you know far less about (regarding many of them, likely you know nothing at all) than any of the scientists publishing papers in this area?

      And what is it that is seemingly making you so nervous about a bunch of scientists following their curiosity where it leads?

      Delete
    71. Its entirely pointless to argue if 500, or 200 genes are required to get a first living cell. Whatever number you put, and upon the fact that number of life essential things are required, you have the minimal, not further reducible cell. Subunits or parts like a piston in a car engine are only designed, when there is a goal where they will be mounted with specific fitting sizes, and correct materials, and have a specific function in the machine as a whole. What good is a ribosome without mRNA, tRNA, error correction, a cipher to be translated, and ATP energy supply ? No function at all. Thats a cell factory requires forplanning to be setup.

      Delete
    72. LS
      "But we are not talking about life. We're talking about pre-life, remember?"

      What is pre life? What evidence do you have that there is such a thing?

      If you have no evidence you certainly can claim this is the null hypothesis but your claim is unsupported.

      Delete
    73. Judmarc
      "Because we have so much evidence of *more complex* creatures magically poofing into existence, right?"

      We don't know how they came into existence but the evidence does not support the simple to complex hypothesis. The evidence we have is that species can reproduce themselves.

      Delete
    74. Bill,

      But can you understand the difference between the concepts of LUCA and the first life forms? Answering this would mean that it's worth explaining things to you.

      "The evidence does not support the simple to complex concept."

      Of course it does. Ancient rocks show evidence of microbial life for eons and eons. Only very recent ones show some abundance of macroscopic life forms. That clearly indicates simpler to complex evolution. I'm leaving aside that the opposite sounds rather nonsensical. How could it jump from non-life to human, for example? Nothing in nature seems to allow for such an event. Remember we're talking about science, not about creation fantasies.

      "You can speculate all you want about whats going on below 500 genes but until you can test that the simpler version works there is no reason to make that the null hypothesis."

      Of course there's plenty of reason. As I said. The fossil record shows that more complex organisms came later. It's the only thing that makes sense.

      "Life is complex even in its simplest form."

      Today, maybe. We haven't explored everything, so maybe there's much simpler. Still, what we have available today is life-as-we-know-it, not life-as-it-started. This should be quite evident to any reasonable person. Is it evident to you at all?

      It's healthy to be skeptical, but you have to be reasonable too.

      But we're distracting ourselves: can you understand the difference between the concepts of LUCA and the first life forms? (I bet you won't answer this once again. Why won't you?)

      Delete
    75. Otangelo,
      Keeping it simple: do you understand the difference between the concepts of LUCA and of first life forms? Can you be honest about this at all?

      Delete
    76. Photo
      "
      Of course it does. Ancient rocks show evidence of microbial life for eons and eons. Only very recent ones show some abundance of macroscopic life forms. That clearly indicates simpler to complex evolution."

      What is your evidence that one came from the other?

      " But can you understand the difference between the concepts of LUCA and the first life forms? Answering this would mean that it's worth explaining things to you."

      I do understand that this is not a testable claim so it is of little interest as a "just so" story. So I relieve you of the burden of explaining this to me :-)

      Delete
    77. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    78. What is your evidence that one came from the other?

      The evidence that's right before your eyes, which your faith requires that you deny.

      How often do we see entire new species magically poofing into existence out of thin air, as your "hypothesis" requires to have happened millions of times over? If this is so common, how come it has never been observed?

      OTOH, the hypothesis you deny requires that we observe populations of organisms change gradually over time, thru both mutations and varying frequency of alleles within a population. Does sound familiar?

      Delete
    79. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    80. Photosynthesis

      Your so called progenote that supposedly came prior to LUCA could not be simple.

      The universal ancestor

      http://www.pnas.org/content/95/12/6854.full

      The Archaea and Bacteria share a large number of metabolic genes that are not found in eukaryotes. If these two “prokaryotic” groups span the primary phylogenetic divide and their genes are vertically (genealogically) inherited, then the universal ancestor must have had all of these genes, these many functions. This distribution of genes would make the ancestor a prototroph with a complete tricarboxylic acid cycle, polysaccharide metabolism, both sulfur oxidation and reduction, and nitrogen fixation; it was motile by means of flagella; it had a regulated cell cycle, and more. This is not the simple ancestor, limited in metabolic capabilities, that biologists originally intuited. That ancestor can explain neither this broad distribution of diverse metabolic functions nor the early origin of autotrophy implied by this distribution. The ancestor that this broad spread of metabolic genes demands is totipotent , a genetically rich and complex entity, as rich and complex as any modern cell—seemingly more so.

      All these functions are ENORMOUSLY complex.

      I believe there was no Progenote, nor LUCA. I believe Genesis is true. I am a creationist by all means, and see good reasons to held this view.

      Delete
    81. photosynthesis asked:

      Otangelo,
      Keeping it simple: do you understand the difference between the concepts of LUCA and of first life forms? Can you be honest about this at all?


      I'd say you got your answer.

      Delete
    82. Otangelo,
      But that article, again, is about a potential LUCA, not about first life forms. Do you understand the difference? If so, what's that difference? (As lutesuite suggests, seems like you don't understand the difference, so, I invite you, for honesty's sake, to check and try and get it, then come back.)

      Bill,
      So what the difference? It doesn't matter if you believe that first life forms were simpler, or not, than a LUCA. Nor does it matter if you don't believe that there was a LUCA. What matters right now is if you understand the difference. Do you?

      Delete
    83. LS
      "OTOH, the hypothesis you deny requires that we observe populations of organisms change gradually over time, thru both mutations and varying frequency of alleles within a population. Does sound familiar?"

      Yet this requires lots of variation to occur from reproduction and lots new mutations getting fixed in the population but cells are designed to minimize variation. (DNA repair and apoptosis). How does evolution create new features? Neutral mutations then poof we have a new feature?

      Delete
    84. Bill,

      (Parenthesis, but please answer the question above.)

      "What is your evidence that one came from the other?"

      Well, if the former appeared before the latter, and given that as far as nature goes, the latter could not come from nowhere, it makes sense that the former gave rise to the latter. But that's not all, molecular data also suggest that the former gave rise to the latter. So, since it makes sense, and the evidence aligns well, I'd be inclined in favour of thinking that the former gave rise to the latter.

      Delete
    85. Photosynthesis

      the article is about a universal ancestor, that gave rise to luca. Since there are hudge differences between eukaryotes and prokaryotes, this supposed ancestor would have to incorporate both, genes to give rise the archea and prokaryotes, and eukaryotes as well.

      LUCA is anyway a buried concept. Evidence does not point to a universal common ancestor.

      Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2761302/

      The concept of a tree of life is prevalent in the evolutionary literature. It stems from attempting to obtain a grand unified natural system that reflects a recurrent process of species and lineage splittings for all forms of life. Traditionally, the discipline of systematics operates in a similar hierarchy of bifurcating (sometimes multifurcating) categories. The assumption of a universal tree of life hinges upon the process of evolution being tree-like throughout all forms of life and all of biological time. In prokaryotes, they do not. Prokaryotic evolution and the tree of life are two different things, and we need to treat them as such, rather than extrapolating from macroscopic life to prokaryotes.

      Delete
    86. photo
      "Well, if the former appeared before the latter, and given that as far as nature goes, the latter could not come from nowhere, it makes sense that the former gave rise to the latter. But that's not all, molecular data also suggest that the former gave rise to the latter. So, since it makes sense, and the evidence aligns well, I'd be inclined in favour of thinking that the former gave rise to the latter."
      Do you consider the former to be simple or complex?

      Delete
    87. Yet this requires lots of variation to occur from reproduction and lots new mutations getting fixed in the population but cells are designed to minimize variation. (DNA repair and apoptosis). How does evolution create new features? Neutral mutations then poof we have a new feature?

      The mechanisms by why evolution produces new features has been demonstrated experimentally. And you have already been made aware of this, so it is obviously pointless to repeat it, since you are clearly too stupid to understand it and/or too invested in your religious preconceptions to accept the evidence staring you in the face.

      Delete
    88. Bill,

      "Do you consider the former to be simple or complex?"

      Depends on how you look at it. Each prokaryotic microbe, for example, would have been simpler than each eukaryote (not any eukaryote, but generally speaking), but as a whole, microbes would be way more complex, since they would have accumulated lots of divergence since they appeared and started populating the planet. That's complexity at a different level, and it's very easy to understand how it arose.

      So, again, do you get the difference between a LUCA and a first life form at all?

      Delete
    89. Otangelo,

      Given what the study involves, it cannot refer but to a hypothetical LUCA. I know that the tree of life and the evolution of prokaryotes is not the same. It's in the abstract you quoted before:

      "If these two “prokaryotic” groups span the primary phylogenetic divide ..."

      See that? the author warns us that his conclusions follow this assumption (that archaea and bacteria divided before eukaryotes arose).

      Anyway, what's so bad about checking the difference between a LUCA and a first life form Otangelo? What would you lose if you had a moment of honesty? Are you afraid of being honest? I'm starting to suspect that you are. Prove me wrong, and show that you understand such difference.

      Delete
    90. Photo
      " That's complexity at a different level, and it's very easy to understand how it arose."
      Very cool. Do tell :-)

      Delete
    91. Photosynthesis

      rather than make lame and pointless acusations about dishonesty, what about you give honest thought about the fact that the the minimal cell, whatever it was, no matter if it had 100, 200, or 500 genes, was irreducible complex ?
      I made some very specific questions, what about you answer them ?
      And since we are at it, have you ever thought about the evidence that you expect to observe in the natural world to acknowledge design as the best explanation of origins ?
      If you never thought about it : Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in my eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?

      Delete
    92. @Bill Cole

      Photo
      " That's complexity at a different level, and it's very easy to understand how it arose."
      Very cool. Do tell :-)


      He said it's very easy to understand. He didn't say you'd be able to understand it.

      Delete
    93. And since we are at it, have you ever thought about the evidence that you expect to observe in the natural world to acknowledge design as the best explanation of origins ?

      That's very easy: If we observed a designer that was not alive designing and creating living things, and if we had evidence (e.g. fossils) that this thing existed at the time that life arose on earth.

      You have something like that, Otangelo?

      Delete
    94. Bill,

      "Very cool. Do tell :-)"

      I told. What about now you give me that answer: do you understand the difference between a LUCA and a first life form? What about having the courtesy of answering something this simple?

      Delete
    95. Otangelo,

      "rather than make lame and pointless acusations about dishonesty"

      Yet you confirm those accusations by refusing to check around and then answer such a simple question. Again: do you understand the difference between a LUCA and a first life form? What's so hard about answering this question? It would cost you a bit less than half the misused quotes in your "library," but it would mean that you actually can learn something. That'd be huge! So what about it? What's the difference Otangelo?

      Delete
    96. photosynthesis

      Yes, i have a topic at my library:

      From the first living organism OOL to to the last universal common ancestor (LUCA)

      you will find there following:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2478661/
      LUCA may be understood as a diverse community of already metabolically and genetically sophisticated organisms. Its predecessor the progenote, more primitive and modular, was also a heterogeneous and diverse community of cells engaged in the emergence of a genetic code. The emergence of self-replicating entities of increasing complexity requires both the formation of compartments (without which no distinction can be made between genotype and phenotype, and parasitic molecules can not be removed) and an ambient metabolism from which to draw renewable building blocks; such a metabolism therefore should be self-sustaining to a certain extent.

      What is your point ? Feel free to consider and answer my questions above now.

      Delete
    97. Otangelo,

      "What is your point ?"

      OK then. I still don't know if you know the difference. You quoted something that says they're different, but I cannot know if you understand that at all, since you seem unable to articulate the difference yourself. Yet, that's a bit of progress. If you do understand the difference, then the point is that now you should be able to renounce to quotes about LUCA as if they represented the first life forms. Right? Quotes you used time and again above (which were removed for very good reasons by the administrator, I wonder if you're able to say something using your own words at all). Do you see the problem of using those quotes as if they referred to the first life forms at all?

      "Feel free to consider and answer my questions above now."

      Sure. But don't forget to answer my question: do you see the problem with using quotes about LUCA as if they represented the first life forms?

      As per your questions:

      "what about you give honest thought about the fact that the the minimal cell, whatever it was, no matter if it had 100, 200, or 500 genes, was irreducible complex ?"

      Sorry, but you cannot call that a fact. For one, your "fact" is a guess based on misquoting articles about potential LUCAs. For another, to prove that the first life forms was irreducibly complex, you'd have to know the factors involved in its origin, what it was really like, and that it could not have evolved or arisen naturally at all. With so many unknowns, I would not be so hasty to claim that it's a fact that the first life forms were irreducibly complex. (I'm talking about the "it could not have evolved at all" version of IC.)

      "I made some very specific questions, what about you answer them ?"

      Which ones? The ones where you demand quantum mechanical detail explanations about the evolution of very specific processes? Sorry. I don't know who everything evolved. I know general approaches, bits of answers here and there, but I don't know everything.

      "And since we are at it, have you ever thought about the evidence that you expect to observe in the natural world to acknowledge design as the best explanation of origins ?"

      I haven't. But I think that if we considered designers, then we would not be talking about origins, right? After all, if there was designers, then how did these designers originate? Where did they come from? What tools did they use? Where they designed or the result of some natural phenomena? What kinds of phenomena? We would be left where we started.

      "If you never thought about it : Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in my eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?"

      What plank? I have no reason to consider designers. I haven't found or read about evidence for ancient tools for making life forms, or ancient tools used to assemble eukaryotic cells from prior microbial forms, or evidence of a camp left by families of designers while producing cyanobacteria. Their computers, their DNA assemblers, etc.

      Delete

    98. photosynthesis wrote

      "You quoted something that says they're different, but I cannot know if you understand that at all "

      In other words, you question my intelligence and hability of understanding. Bill Fait at my FB timeline gave a nice characterisation of common atheist behavior :
      The vast majority are rude, insulting, arrogant, vulgar, provocative, resort to name calling, personal attacks, and overtly aggressive postures. Most atheists have a superiority complex.

      Your posts, photosynthesis, are no exception.

      "since you seem unable to articulate the difference yourself. Yet, that's a bit of progress."

      I am not only not able to articulate the difference myself. I have NO CLUE AT ALL HOW THAT SUPPOSED PROGENOTE should have looked like. And guess what ? Neither so have scientists. Neither so you do. The paper from where i quote HAS NO REAL CLUE either.
      But you think you have ? If so, what about you give a precise characterisation based on hard scientific data and research ?!


      "If you do understand the difference, then the point is that now you should be able to renounce to quotes about LUCA as if they represented the first life forms. Right? "

      No, not right. Nobody knows if there was such a transition. Obviously, proponents of evolution try to insert evolution everywhere in their gap of understanding, in order to keep their blind faith that " Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution ". Its nothing more than guess work and speculation.

      " Sorry, but you cannot call that a fact. For one, your "fact" is a guess based on misquoting articles about potential LUCAs. For another, to prove that the first life forms was irreducibly complex, you'd have to know the factors involved in its origin, what it was really like, and that it could not have evolved or arisen naturally at all. With so many unknowns, I would not be so hasty to claim that it's a fact that the first life forms were irreducibly complex. (I'm talking about the "it could not have evolved at all" version of IC.)"

      Denial of the obvious to keep your no-God-ideology , wear eye and ear gards, and throw lame acusations about dishonesty ?!!
      We know that even one protein could not have emerged by natural means. Ribosomes, mRNA, tRNA's, error check and repair, ATP, tRNA synthetases and the genetic code are irreducible and interdependent. One alone has no use, only all together. Its not difficult for anyone with a little understanding of biology to " get" that. HONEST thinkers come to that conclusion without much effort. But your wilful ignorance exposes your bias and bad will. Thats why you are an atheist.

      Delete
    99. "I don't know who everything evolved. I know general approaches, bits of answers here and there, but I don't know everything."

      Yep. Its enough to know that God is not required. Got ya.

      "And since we are at it, have you ever thought about the evidence that you expect to observe in the natural world to acknowledge design as the best explanation of origins ?"
      I haven't. "

      Congrats. Thats a answer that i know you are telling the truth.

      " But I think that if we considered designers, then we would not be talking about origins, right? After all, if there was designers, then how did these designers originate? Where did they come from? What tools did they use? Where they designed or the result of some natural phenomena? What kinds of phenomena? We would be left where we started. "

      So here you make irrelevant questions to deflect from the real ones : Namely why chance would be a better explanation than design....

      "What plank? I have no reason to consider designers."

      Have you searched ? No. By your own admission. You have not even given a thought about what would be signs of intelligence. A hint. Self replicating information rich factories full of complex machines and manufacturing production lines, information flow of encoding, transmitting, and decoding of codes, information, and language are *always* a deliberate act of intelligence. All that you find in every living cell.

      Delete
    100. Otangelo writes to photosynthesis:

      Have you searched ? No. By your own admission. You have not even given a thought about what would be signs of intelligence. A hint. Self replicating information rich factories full of complex machines and manufacturing production lines, information flow of encoding, transmitting, and decoding of codes, information, and language are *always* a deliberate act of intelligence. All that you find in every living cell.

      If you are adhering to the scientific tenets of cognitive science then I can't argue with that. Looks like this of course:

      https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.png

      And more for you:

      https://sites.google.com/site/intelligenceprograms/Home/Causation.GIF

      Delete
    101. Otangelo,

      I did not ask you what a progenote looked like at all. I asked you if you know the difference between the concept of a LUCA and that of a first life form. You obviously don't. Not only that, you don't have the honesty to try and understand it.

      If, at the very least, you knew that they're not the same thing, you'd understand why you should stop using quotes about the LUCA as if they were meant to represent original life.

      "Nobody knows if there was such a transition"

      That doesn't mean that articles about the LUCA can be misused as if they referred to the original life. You don't want to be called a fool, yet you argue as one. What else are we left to think about you?

      "Denial of the obvious to keep your no-God-ideology , wear eye and ear gards, and throw lame acusations about dishonesty ?!!"

      What do you mean by obvious? You refuse to understand a simple distinction, and it's me who denies the obvious? Larrry is right, you're uneducable.

      "We know that even one protein could not have emerged by natural means."

      We don't know such a thing. Given that you cannot understand how mistaking the concepts of LUCA and original life is problematic, I doubt that your can claim to know such a thing at all. I've seen your quotes, and they show deep ignorance and will for misrepresentation. Not knowledge.

      "Ribosomes, mRNA, tRNA's, error check and repair, ATP, tRNA synthetases and the genetic code are irreducible and interdependent"

      In some cases, in some organisms, maybe. But that doesn't mean that they could not have evolved. It just means that they're interdependent in their current form and situation.

      "Yep. Its enough to know that God is not required. Got ya."

      If you were asking me to consider fantasies, then you should have said so. That's easier to answer: I don't consider fantasies because, well, they're fantasies. See how easy that was?

      "So here you make irrelevant questions to deflect from the real ones :"

      Irrelevant questions? So, to consider designers we should not wonder about the designers themselves? Their methods, their tools, their origins?And that's reasonable? Your standards are very weird. For nature, you want each and every detail. For "designers" you don't care about details at all. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

      "Namely why chance would be a better explanation than design...."

      Chance? Who's talking about chance? I'm talking about natural processes, surely you understand that nature is not just chance, don't you? If you do, then why bring such a false dichotomy to the table?

      See ya Otangelo. You're authentically uneducable.

      Delete
    102. photosynthesis wrote

      "I did not ask you what a progenote looked like at all. I asked you if you know the difference between the concept of a LUCA and that of a first life form. You obviously don't. Not only that, you don't have the honesty to try and understand it."

      I answered your question above with a quote from a scientific paper. But you keep acusing me of not knowing the difference. Who is being dishonest by repeating a question which i answered already ? And if you think my answer was not correct, why do you not simply correct me ? Ahhh... just in order for keeping your lame acusations ?

      "If, at the very least, you knew that they're not the same thing, you'd understand why you should stop using quotes about the LUCA as if they were meant to represent original life."

      I answered already. NOBODY KNOWS if there was such a transition. I don't buy the story at all. For me, phyla were created by God. As we read in Genesis. And from there, the different life forms diverged and adapted to the environment.

      "That doesn't mean that articles about the LUCA can be misused as if they referred to the original life. You don't want to be called a fool, yet you argue as one. What else are we left to think about you?"

      You are not understanding in order to be able to name call me. For sake, give a try in advancing your education and stop insulting the counterpart you debate with. I repeat , and say it again : It makes no difference, if first life had 500, 200, or 100 genes. Whatever you put as first life was irreducible complex.

      "What do you mean by obvious? You refuse to understand a simple distinction, and it's me who denies the obvious? Larrry is right, you're uneducable."

      Did i entitle you to educate me ? Your superiority complex shines through nicely....

      "We know that even one protein could not have emerged by natural means."
      We don't know such a thing. "

      We absolutely do. Thats the kind of things anyone is able to understand. But you are unwilling, and that is your problem.


      "Given that you cannot understand how mistaking the concepts of LUCA and original life is problematic, I doubt that your can claim to know such a thing at all. I've seen your quotes, and they show deep ignorance and will for misrepresentation. Not knowledge."

      Yep. Keep your eye and ear gards firmly weared.....

      "Ribosomes, mRNA, tRNA's, error check and repair, ATP, tRNA synthetases and the genetic code are irreducible and interdependent"
      In some cases, in some organisms, maybe."

      No kidding...... In what organism does ANY of the mentioned parts function without the others ?

      Delete
    103. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    104. Hey Otangelo,
      "So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer."

      You mistakenly misinterpret "one needn't be able to" with "one must not".
      If an unknown machine was found on the moon, we could just say "goddidit" and leave it at that. But a true curious mind would look at the machine and start postulating explanations. If you find levers, you can extrapolate if these creatures had hand like structures, comparable to ours? Is the machine huge would it mean the builders were also huge?
      You can extrapolate lots of things from found artifacts. Arrow heads points to people capable of using bows. Because aerodynamics didn't change in tens of thousands of years, you can extrapolate if the arrow is larger or smaller than modern day arrows. Which also gives you a clue about the bow, and also gives you a clue about the approximate size of the bow handler. And thats only the start of what one single arrow head can tell you about the people who used it.
      Back to Craig: a machine on the moon can tell you that there were people capable of space flight before us. They clearly got this far, they must know how to build rockets at least. The size, the external levers, buttons etc give you a clue if there anatomy might be comparable to ours. The materials used tells you what is available to these creatures on their world(s). Maybe if we're lucky we can find traces of DNA like substances? Finger/ appendage prints? Saying 'trying to find out stuff about the designer kills science' is bullshit.
      I'd say trying NOT to find out details about the designer is the killer of science.
      The proof is in the eating, and in your case, the proof is in the posting.

      Delete
    105. Ed

      the only point i intended to make is that in order to infer design as the best explanation of origins, we do not need to explain the designer. Of course, once that design is the best explanation, a curious mind will go further and ask a serious of philosophical and theological questions, as i point out at the topic which i posted here : "A cumulative case for the God of the bible".

      A simple syllogism illustrates the rationale:

      There are three possible mechanisms of origins, chance, physical necessity, and intelligent design / creation.
      Its not chance, nor physical necessity.
      Therefore, ID is the most plausible, adequate explanation of origins.

      Objection: You really need to take time to define who this supreme being is before you can assert it actually exists.
      Answer: No proponent of Intelligent design makes conclusive absolute assertions that a Intelligent Designer exists. One of the best solutions to handling the issue of evidence and arguments for God’s existence is to utilize what is called inference to the best explanation. The inference to the best explanation model takes into account the best available explanation in our whole range of experience and reflection. Since we as humans can’t observe God as a material object, one way to approach this issue is to look at the effects in the world and make rational inferences to the cause of the effect. Remember, evidence is always evidence for (or against) something.

      Delete
    106. There are three possible mechanisms of origins, chance, physical necessity, and intelligent design / creation.
      Its not chance, nor physical necessity.
      Therefore, ID is the most plausible, adequate explanation of origins.


      Why not:

      Its not ID.
      Therefore, therefore chance and/or physical necessity are the most plausible, adequate explanations of origins.

      Never mind that those three options do not exhaust the possibilities, and do not encompass evolutionary theory.

      I wonder how many logical fallacies Otangelo committed with the above argument. I count at least two (false dilemma, strawman).

      Delete
    107. In other words, you question my intelligence and hability (sic) of understanding.

      Check out the brain on Otangelo! Nothing gets by him, does it?

      Delete
    108. Otangelo:
      "the only point i intended to make is that in order to infer design as the best explanation of origins, we do not need to explain the designer"

      OK, for the sake of argument, lets say fair enough. So what evidence do you have in favor of design? Just to remind you: "evolution can't do this, thus goddidit" isn't evidence. Which up until now, is in fact the basis of 100% of your arguments.

      You continue:
      "Of course, once that design is the best explanation, a curious mind will go further and ask a serious of philosophical and theological questions"

      Why theological? If we find a machine on the moon, the first question will certainly NOT be "gee, which god did these creatures pray to".

      Delete
    109. Why theological? If we find a machine on the moon, the first question will certainly NOT be "gee, which god did these creatures pray to".

      Of course they would, Ed. That's how it works, don't you know?

      For instance, when archeologists find evidence of stone tools from a time and place that was not previously known to be inhabited by humans, the first thing they do is back off and call in a crack team of theologians to solve the mystery. Don't you know anything?

      Delete
  10. Gary Gaulin asks:

    "How does "intelligent cause" work?"

    A intelligent designer creates through power, information input ( words ), wisdom, and will. But how exactly does this work ?

    Ann Gauger : It's still worth considering how a mind might act in the world to cause change. The answer is we don't know. I sit here typing. My mind, mediated by my brain, is putting words into a computer program (designed by other minds, by the way), using my fingers to type. But how does it happen, really? Where does the impulse to press one key instead of another come from? And how do these words, products of my mind, communicate to others through their computer screens? We can't really say how our own minds work to interact with the world, yet we know they do. It is our universal, repeated, personal experience that shows us that our consciousness interacts with our bodies to produce information, but exactly how it works is not known. So why should we expect to know how the agent(s) responsible for the design of life or the universe may have worked? The theory of intelligent design does not propose a mechanism (a strictly or necessarily materialistic cause) for the origin of biological information. Rather, it proposes an intelligent or mental cause. In so doing, it does exactly what we want a good historical scientific theory to do. It proposes a cause that is known from our uniform and repeated experience (to borrow a phrase) to have the power to produce the effect in question, which in this case, is functional information in living systems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ann "Green Screen" Gauger is one of my favourite creationists, because you can always count on her to shoot herself in the foot. And here she does not disappoint. Does she really not know how her brain operates her fingers to allow her to type on her computer? If so, then maybe an introductory level course in neurology can help her out.

      The point is that we know a lot about how intelligent design occurs. It requires the existence of a complex brain capable of generating ideas and which is connected to a body thru an elaborate set of electrical connections. This body is able create examples of systems that implement the design and/or communicate the design to other brains.

      That the precise means by which intelligence is generated by the brain is not fully understood is irrelevant. The process of "intelligent design" has never been observed to occur except thru a brain connected to a body.

      So Annie Green Screen and her fellow IDiots have a few options:

      They can identify the brain and body that they believe existed millions of years ago and responsible for "designing" complex biological systems, and provide evidence for its existence.

      Or, they can provide an observed instance of something being "designed" by an "intelligence" that exists independent of a brain and a body.

      Or, they can keep making the same absurd arguments and remain laughing stocks for reasonable and informed people.

      I wonder which option they will choose?

      Delete
    2. Ann Gauger : It's still worth considering how a mind might act in the world to cause change. The answer is we don't know.

      Scientific theory has to explain how something such as the said "intelligent cause" works. Regardless of your belief that you are special, none are allowed to leave such things up to the imagination.

      At least it's good to see the Discovery Institute's top researchers proud of no "theory of intelligent design" ever being found there, even though that is scientific misconduct and also qualifies as a bait-and-switch "scam" that can be legally shut-down.

      Scientific theory to explain how "intelligent cause" works still has to be ignored by you and others who claim to speak for the theory and I. You have no idea how much disgrace that is, to even the rank and file of the ID movement.

      Methodist and other mainstream religions leaders want nothing to do with the scam. Yet you carry on as though you're speaking for all Christians and Christianity when you're instead on your own with the new found reputation of being a US version of a religious extremist mainstream religious leaders have had to publicly denounce.

      You are clearly digging yourselves deeper and deeper into trouble. Taking others down with you just create more victims. In either case: hitting of "rock bottom" is straight ahead.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    4. They can identify the brain and body that they believe existed millions of years ago and responsible for "designing" complex biological systems, and provide evidence for its existence.

      And then they can provide evidence for how it came into existence, other than by evolution from something less sophisticated. There are only two options at the beginning of this chain of designers: A designer that evolved from a much less sophisticated entity by natural means; or an entity that has always existed or poofed into existence that always had the ability to design life.

      The first is of course evolution, just in another place and time, so you haven't disproved evolution at all. The second is either supernatural (just for starters, because eternal existence violates the laws of thermodynamics) or infinitely less probable than evolution (if it's impossible in this universe for mere self-replicating molecules to poof into existence on their own, then a full-blown hugely powerful and intelligent entity is infinitely less possible).

      So in short there can be no scientific theory of ID, and cagey avoidance of the nature of the designer is just an effort to keep from admitting it.

      Delete
    5. Hopefully Larry and others can now see that this is more likely a mental health related issue that leads to criminal behavior perpetrators normally rationalize as being just and necessary. A search like this helps show what I'm talking about:

      https://www.google.com/search?q=criminals+who+claimed+god+told+them+to+do+it

      Delete
    6. judmarc says:
      So in short there can be no scientific theory of ID, and cagey avoidance of the nature of the designer is just an effort to keep from admitting it.

      Were you purposely ignoring me? Or should I be concerned about your mental health too?

      Delete
    7. "cagey avoidance of the nature of the designer"

      That is the inherent tragic weakness of ID. Creationists know this Person.

      Delete
    8. It's not my fault that there are "creationists" who have a "cagey avoidance of the nature of the designer".

      In my case the opposite is true. But you and others do not even have the scientific candor to give due credit for setting a good example:

      Theory Of Intelligent Design

      Intelligence Design Lab Computer Models

      You're attitudes are bringing all of science down. If it gets any worse here in the states then US scientists will soon be hiking to Canada and Mexico, in order to seek political asylum.

      Delete
    9. Please excuse above typo. "You're" should be "Your". I had a 13 hour workday followed by hours of rushing out what I could for replies.

      Although possibly human: Otangelo and others work like a misinformation-bot. They are enabled by whatever is said that can be countered using quotes from DI "researchers" containing words like "we" while making excuses for not being able to explain how "intelligent cause" works. There is no model from which to reliably predict what happened, historically. It's a total misrepresentation of how science works. But where repeated enough times it can appear to be something that must be taught in the US public schools, and makes it OK to use Biblical answers in place of scientific ones.

      Those who know better understand how in the real science world excuses like that would have their funding stopped then shut-down for scientific incompetence. In this case though it's too easy to make it seem like their problem is a valid scientific issue requiring changes in how science is taught. I doubt that those who religiously justify such actions are going to respond to scientific reason.

      Delete
  11. "For His invisible attributes, namely, His eternal power and divine
    nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:20

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mean like cute little baby fur seals being eaten by polar bears (which they must do to stay alive - what a wonderful world The Lord hath made)?

      Delete
    2. "They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys." Joshua 6:21

      Delete
    3. Otangelo. How does invisible attributes, namely, eternal power and divine nature, clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made, so that they are without excuse, work?

      I am here agreeing that this scripture can be used to form the basis of a scientific question. The answer only requires a scientific model/theory to at least begin to scientifically explain how our creator works.

      Any process that in cognitive science qualifies as "intelligent" is a vital clue to what scientifically aware theologians have for centuries been searching for evidence of. That's why young Galileo and other great minds ended up loving the only places around that had a science book library, namely churches and monasteries. Hostility towards science is a recent exception caused by Charles Darwin talking about his theory being the end of religion, which it was not.

      Delete
    4. That's why young Galileo and other great minds ended up loving the only places around that had a science book library, namely churches and monasteries.

      And the Church loved him right back...

      Delete
  12. "How does invisible attributes, namely, eternal power and divine nature, clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made, so that they are without excuse, work?"

    The point is that it doesn't work. The moon is not the result of a Mars-sized impactor crashing into the Earth. The water on planet Earth did not come from collisions with icy comets. The Earth's oxygen content is not the result of cyanobacteria. Swamps do not grow on top of each other till they are a thousand feet deep. Rock layers do not accumulate for millions of years and suddenly change color and composition. Living organisms below minimal genetic characteristics are not possible, and functional enzymes do not self-assemble for no reason. Dinosaur blood vessels cannot last for 247 million years.
    -
    “I am here agreeing that this scripture can be used to form the basis of a scientific question.”

    This scripture is not about scientific questions. It is about evidence for criminal conviction and execution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This scripture is not about scientific questions. It is about evidence for criminal conviction and execution.

      That's news to me. What religion are you speaking for? Otangelo's? In their case I would have to consider such a war-mongering interpretation be extrapolated from it, but that's not what I was taught. The phrase "without excuse" is also another way of saying "self-evident", as in fossil evidence showing change in animal diversity over time leaving some without a reasonable excuse for denying it.

      Delete
    2. The moon is not the result of a Mars-sized impactor crashing into the Earth.

      Just wondering how far your delusion goes. The Bible has been thought to state the sun moves around the Earth. Do you agree?

      Delete
    3. "The Bible has been thought to state the sun moves around the Earth."

      The Bible does not state that. It speaks, just like we do conversationally, from the perspective of a person who sees sunrises and sunsets.

      Delete
    4. We appear to have a biblical literalist here. The usual thing to do here would be to ask whether plants were indeed created before the sun, how the earth's orbit worked before the sun existed, whether Adam was created before or after the animals, and so on. Typically, the literalist will provide a lame rationalization to harmonize scripture — poorly — with reality and itself. Is it time to start that?

      Delete
    5. We appear to have a biblical literalist here. The usual thing to do here would be to ask whether plants were indeed created before the sun, how the earth's orbit worked before the sun existed, whether Adam was created before or after the animals, and so on. Typically, the literalist will provide a lame rationalization to harmonize scripture — poorly — with reality and itself. Is it time to start that?

      You are not willing to accept the explanation of OEC or other evangelicals of these biblical texts, so why are you even bringing it up again?

      Are you familiar with the Hebrew and Aramaic translations of these texts? Let me know if you are and I will ask someone to educated you about the basics you are not willing to accept.

      But I think it is going to be a waste of time dealing with someone like you with such a bias.

      Just a note for those who are interested;

      there seems to be an unspecified interval between initial creation of the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1 many bible scholars agree that the language used is consistent with that approach) and first creative day, which boils down to allowing the light to get through the atmosphere, so that the vegetation being created at the time can survive and so on...

      BTW: If we were talking about the major evolutionary inconsistencies or kazaams that exist in that faith based "science" (hihihi) and reality, Harshaman would keep it quiet. Why would he harassed his own believes even if he has no scientific proof for? Would he be as harsh on his own faith?

      I'm not going to waste my time on details that someone more competent than me has already done it.

      Delete
    6. Jass, I'm certainly willing to believe that there are many people more competent than you. I'd be willing to go as far as "most people". The gap theory is one of those amusing lame rationalizations I was talking about.

      Delete
    7. "The usual thing to do here would be to ask whether plants were indeed created before the sun, how the earth's orbit worked before the sun existed, whether Adam was created before or after the animals, and so on."

      You can read the text yourself and answer those questions.
      -
      "Typically, the literalist will provide a lame rationalization to harmonize scripture — poorly — with reality and itself."

      Well, I'm definitely a literalist. But as it pertains to reality, your narrative begins with "Once upon a time, there were deep sea vents....".

      Delete
    8. txpiper,

      OK, go for it. Quote the text in Genesis where it explains what plants did before the sun was created, how the earth's orbit worked then, and whether Man was created last (Genesis 1) or first (Genesis 2).

      Delete
  13. "In their case I would have to consider such a war-mongering interpretation be extrapolated from it, but that's not what I was taught"

    That's not an interpretation. It is a point blank reading of Romans 1, and you were taught wrong. The phrase "without excuse" means "without excuse".

    The fossil evidence is showing billions of creatures buried in mud. The fossils are not showing that DNA replication errors turned reptiles into mammals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The fossils are not showing that DNA replication errors turned reptiles into mammals."

      True. Mammals evolved from synapsids, not from reptiles. The fossil record shows that.

      Delete
    2. That's not an interpretation. It is a point blank reading of Romans 1, and you were taught wrong.

      In my opinion it is very well describing the scam against science, reason and even mainstream religion that the Discovery Institute and others are committing:

      For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

      Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

      For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

      And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


      http://biblehub.com/kjv/romans/1.htm

      If you want to teach kids how to be terrorists then be prepared to be arrested by legal authorities as a common criminal.

      Delete
    3. "If you want to teach kids how to be terrorists then be prepared to be arrested by legal authorities as a common criminal."

      I have no idea what you're referring to.

      Delete
    4. And what does that have to do with the text you pasted?

      Delete
    5. See the last sentence:

      Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

      Acting upon (human written and dozens of versions to choose from) instructions like these is now very very illegal. Barbaric.

      Delete
    6. Oh, I see. You missed the entire point. Those are not instructions for individuals. But, since so many Americans are advocates for the things mentioned in this chapter, you will probably have the opportunity to observe a lot of barbarism. You may find yourself wishing for a civilized society.

      Delete
    7. Those are not instructions for individuals.

      Then in your opinion what are those instructions for?



      Delete
    8. "knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death"

      That is not an instruction. It is a statement indicating that there is a judge and a sentence.

      Delete
    9. That is not an instruction. It is a statement indicating that there is a judge and a sentence.

      As in a Donald Trump appointed "judge", a human?

      Or as in a judgmental religious deity that is supposed to be beyond science to explain?

      Delete