A Brief Survey of Abiogenesis Processes

Oct 28 2011 Published by under Uncategorized

As promised, we'll get away from the philosophical stuff (as much fun as it's been) and on to some of the current state of abiogenesis.  I will borrow some previous articles I've  written on Cassandra's Tears, but I'll try to update them as we go.  My vacation is over and I've learned I'll be traveling to New York middle of next week for work.

What is abiogenesis?

Well, a long time ago, some scientists proved that abiogenesis didn't happen and creationists have been arguing about it ever since. Francisco Redi showed that flies lay eggs on meat, but meat does not generate maggots.  Lazzaro Spallanzani* showed (sort of) that sterile broth doesn't make critters either.  Pasteur made Spallanzani's experiment better and basically proved abiogenesis is impossible.

Oh wait.  No he didn't.  He proved that spontaneous generation of living things from inanimate matter was effectively impossible.  This has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis.  A point lost on 47% of US citizens.

Abiogenesis is the formation of living things from non-living matter, but how is that different from spontaneous generation?  Well, Redi and the others were looking at modern organisms appearing without having parents.  Mice born from sacks of grain, that sort of thing.  Abiogenesis is the idea that the first 'living thing' on the planet was produced via chemical reactions.  Once a replicator exists, then it can spam the environment with copies of itself.  Presumably, the organism copied itself imperfectly and the idea of species were born.

I'll say up front that, most likely, we will never know exactly how life on this planet came to be.  Many of the ideas I'll describe here are not incompatible, so it could have been one method or multiple methods, each contributing a piece to the puzzle.  This, of course, is where we get into the determinism vs. contingency discussion again.  We won't, but this is where it would go.  🙂

Given that though, it would be trivial to falsify the concept of abiogenesis.  If any experiment showed that a critical step was chemically impossible, then the concept of abiogensis would be in serious trouble.  However, at this point there are numerous pathways for several major chemical groups, so even if one path were falsified, it is likely we could find an alternate path that would work just as well.

So, what are our options?

The first, and probably the most popular, is the RNA World hypothesis.  In general, this hypothesis suggests that because RNA can be both a carrier of genetic information and act as an enzyme to speed up chemical reactions, that RNA came first.  This hypothesis is supported by the relative ease by which some nucleic acids are made from non-biologic sources.  The famous Miller-Urey experiment didn't form nucleic acids, but then this paper successfully overcomes some of those issues.

Our findings suggest that the prebiotic synthesis of activated pyrimidine
nucleotides should be viewed as predisposed30. This predisposition
would have allowed the synthesis to operate on the early
Earth under geochemical conditions suitable for the assembly
sequence.

Now, there are some issues with the RNA world.  To date (as far as I'm aware) there has only been one case of a self-reproducing RNA developed.  It is not, shall we say, elegant.  It would be very difficult to form and a pretty exact sequence of nucleotides is needed. Unfortunately, neither of the authors (Tracey Lincoln or Gerald Joyce) see their work continuing along these lines.

The beauty of the RNA world is that it takes care of a lot of the details that we think of when we think of life.  Reproduction, evolution, heredity, and chemical metabolism (kinda) are all there.  These are the pieces of life.  What it lacks is a a couple of critical pieces that are missing are that we haven't built self-replicating RNAs that are simple enough to assemble spontaneously.

Here, I'd like to insert a possibility that is not very popular, but it is relevant.  The idea of panspermia.  Now, this isn't the older "aliens seeded the Earth with life" notion.  But it is known that the conditions in space produce large volumes of organic compounds, including nucleic acids.  So, that's another method that sufficient quantities of organic compounds could appear on Earth.

OK, the next big idea is that of the Iron-Sulfur World.  This concept is significantly different from that of the RNA world in that this is a 'metabolism first' idea rather than information first idea.  Iron sulfide minerals have been found to have some very interesting catalytic properties.  The other major difference is that this would take place in the deep ocean, near undersea volcanic pipes.  Similar to the Miller-Urey experiment, if you put a bunch of volcanic products in really warm water in the presence of iron and nickel sulfides, you end up with some interesting compounds.  Like the methyl thioester of acetic acid and thioacetic acid which are simple analogues of acetyl-CoA.

As far as problems with the Iron-Sulfur world, what it doesn't have is reproduction or heredity.  It does have a powerful metabolism and the ability to synthesize a wide variety of organic compounds.  So, we're missing a key element, genetics.

There are a number of other hypotheses within this area of research.  The clay models, the lipid world, the PAH World, etc.  The important thing to note here is that very few of all these different concepts are mutually exclusive.  Which leads me to my preferred explanation...

All of them.

Why not?  You get the metabolism from iron-sulfur world, the genetics from RNA-world, the long chain molecules from the clay model, and combine them.  Hence my thoughts on the contingency of life.  What if the Earth was too cool to have volcanoes?  Then we would lose a big chunk of the ability to get organic compounds from inorganic sources.  There are a lot more 'ifs', 'ands' and 'buts' here.  But I think this is a good way to go.  Not thinking like a reductionist "this hypothesis is supported" but like a lumper "look at all the hypotheses that are supported".

We have some good ideas for how cells came to be and homochirality too.  More on that later.

I know this is a very brief look at these.  There is A LOT to explore in this area.  I've done some research blogging on a few of the articles I've mentioned here.

If you guys have any questions or concepts you'd like to explore, let me know and I'll try to get some material and put something together for it.

 

___________________________________________________________
* Spallanzani's name always reminds of me of Dr. Lizardo... 5 internets if you can remember what movie that name is from.

57 responses so far

  • Moopheus says:

    Laugh while you can, monkey boy!

    As to the panspermia idea, just today (or yesterday?) I saw a brief article about a couple of astronomers in Hong Kong who say they've identified more complex hydrocarbons in nova remnants than previously seen. Any thought how this might affect this part of the theory?

  • This article: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast05apr_1/
    talks a little about what the thinking.

    First, yes, nebula seem to have a lot of organics in them too: http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=46651

    And then the recent discovery of large amounts of water has added to the potential: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6054/338.abstract

    So, the thinking seems to be that the water for the solar system's comets was present during the early stages of the solar system. Some of the organics developed at that time, some may have been captured as our early solar system passed through a nebula or the remnants thereof.

    All that material was consolidated into the comets, many of which crashed into the early Earth. This provided water for the oceans and a lot of organics concentrated into a small area.

  • Joe G says:

    Joyce produced a self-sustained RNA replication- there wasn't any self-replicating/ self-reproducing RNA. And nothing evolved even though there was a sequence change.

    That said it is one thing to get the building-blocks and quite another to put together the building.

  • Hi Joe, long time, no hear.

    You are absolutely right... no one has said any differently. Yet, RNA, without the help of any additional molecules can sustain a self replication reaction.

    You are also right in that it is one thing to get the building blocks and another to get them to build the building.

    However, as we discover, there is nothing so far discovered that would prevent life from forming given the precursor molecules. Has it been done in the lab. No. Of course, even today, there is a significant amount of research being done.

    Will we ever know how it happened here on Earth. No. That's not the point. The point is, IF it is possible to go from non-organic compounds to life without any intervention other than chemistry and physics, then the designer hypothesis can be eliminated, if only for being the least parsimonious option (not to mention the complete lack of evidence for such a designer).

  • Joe G says:

    Kevin,

    There isn't anything that says even if we get all the components together a living organsim will form.

    And yes IF it is possible to go from non-organic compounds to life without any intervention other than chemistry and physics, then the designer hypothesis can be eliminated, if only for being the least parsimonious option (not to mention the complete lack of evidence for such a designer).

    We have only been saying that for millenia. Thanks for finally catching up.

  • Joe G says:

    And thank you for finally admitting that ID is both testable and falsifiable.

    Good job...

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    What have you been saying for millenia? That if we observed life forming from non-organic compounds to life without any intervention other than chemistry and physics then a designer would not be required for said life?

    Do you actually have anything to contribute other then the most trite statements of the blindingly obvious?

    And how does this make ID testable or falsifiable? By definition we are the life that formed, we can't observe ourselves forming.

    Are you saying that we should observe life forming to falsify ID?

    Where do we look then? Presumably you've been attempting to falsify ID yourself, in order to give it support. What have you done so far, where have you looked in an attempt to falsify ID?

    Good job...

  • Joe G says:

    Hi OM,

    I see you have nothing to contribute but the same tired old diatribe that you have been spewing for years. And thanks for once again proving that you don't know anything about ID nor science.

    Again you don't have to worry about ID- just focus on your position and the data will sort it all out. But it bothers you that the way to the design inference is THROUGH yours, doesn't it...

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    You said "ID is both testable and falsifiable" and I simply asked you how in relation to your statement regarding "non-organic compounds to life" in your previous comment.

    If you don't want to address questions regarding the statements you make then perhaps I could suggest you retreat to where you can moderate other people or simply don't make statements like "ID is testable" in venues you don't control.

    If this is the "same tired old diatribe" then the only thing that can change it is you as people wherever you go will ask logical questions about the statements that you make.

  • Joe G says:

    OM,

    I have posted on how to test ID. Kevin just posted on how to falsify it. What is your problem?

    OTOH neither YOU nor Kevin has ever posted on how to test your position.

    Strange, that...

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    So how do we test IF it is possible to go from non-organic compounds to life without any intervention other than chemistry and physics and thereby disconfirm ID?

    Whatever experiment might be performed will be dismissed by you because it's a "designed" experimental situation providing "intervention".

    So it's an "in principle" but not an "in practice" way to falsify ID.

    And you simply refuse to address that for some reason.

  • Joe G says:

    OM:
    So how do we test IF it is possible to go from non-organic compounds to life without any intervention other than chemistry and physics and thereby disconfirm ID?

    Umm I would think it is up to you to test your position and obviously to figure out how to do so. We have been over this before.

    OM:
    Whatever experiment might be performed will be dismissed by you because it's a "designed" experimental situation providing "intervention".

    Yup, whining over science, as usual. And it ain't up to just me- it would be up to peer-review. And as I said Dr Behe and others have put it in writing- demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for a living organism- ie taht a living organism is reducible to matter and energy.

    But I find it strange that you would try to blame me or ID because your position is untestable. And YOU simply refuse to address that for some reason.

  • Joe G says:

    To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

    So there you have it. All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...

    The positive case for the design inference is if nature, operating freely cannot account for it and it exhibits some specification- as in functionality (and yes the specification can be as simple as "it looks designed" because if something looks designed and no known natural (as contrasted with artificial) processes can account for it then we owe it to science to at least check into that possibility)

  • Joe G says:

    "Our ability to be confident of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles to be confident of the design of anything: the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components." Dr Behe in "Darwin's Black Box"

    And we are confident in that inference due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.

  • OM says:

    Joe,

    If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

    So you start off with a default potion of "design" then rather then "don't know"?

    Umm I would think it is up to you to test your position and obviously to figure out how to do so.

    You are the person making the claim, it's up to you to test it. What claim have I made?

    And as I said Dr Behe and others have put it in writing- demonstrate that blind, undirected chemical processes can account for a living organism- ie taht a living organism is reducible to matter and energy.

    Living organisms have been examined quite thoroughly. There is nothing in them other then matter and energy.

    But I find it strange that you would try to blame me or ID because your position is untestable. And YOU simply refuse to address that for some reason.

    So ID only survives as long as my "position" is untestable? That's some very strange reasoning.

    "I'm going to believe in unicorns until you prove they don't exist".

    To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    And I repeat, once again, what this means. You are saying that unless we observe life forming from non-life without interference then ID is the default position.

    As we're unlikely to observe that your position is safe. Pointless and unproductive, but safe.

    If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

    Using that metric you can't even say that a pebble found on the beach is not designed. After all, is nature capable of that specific bump, that specific shape? Prove it!

    All the anti-ID mob has to do is to actually start supporting their position and ID will fade away...

    The ID position? What would that be? That somewhere, somewhen somehow something designed something?

    The positive case for the design inference is if nature, operating freely cannot account for it

    You don't understand the concept of positive evidence do you?

    And we are confident in that inference due to our knowledge of cause and effect relationships in accordance with uniformitarianism.

    Confidence does not equal evidence. What possible cause and effect relationship other then "designers design things" are you referencing?

    the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components.

    That's like saying that the meaning of a sentence depends sharply on the words used to make it up. Tell me another blindly obvious fact please Joe!

    Joe, a simple question. When did the designer last act? Was it at the origin of life (i.e. the subject of this thread) or some other time?

    How do you know?

  • Joe G says:

    OM:
    So you start off with a default potion of "design" then rather then "don't know"?

    No- we start out with we don't know and only once nature, operating freely has been eliminated and some soecification met, we infer design.

    I have been over and over this with you- obviously you are a waste of time.

    OM:
    Living organisms have been examined quite thoroughly. There is nothing in them other then matter and energy.

    Information, which is not reducible to matter and energy, has ben found inside living organisms. But that doesn't mean they are reducible to matter, energy and information.

    So ID only survives as long as my "position" is untestable?

    ID survives because there isn't any feasible alternative and it has positive data to support it.

    OM:
    You are saying that unless we observe life forming from non-life without interference then ID is the default position.

    You don't have any idea what "default" means. We don't know, then nature, operating freely, then design- it is the last thing to be considered.

    If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

    Using that metric you can't even say that a pebble found on the beach is not designed.

    That is the metric that has been used by science for centuries. Nature, operating freely produces pebbles- no need to infer they are designed- what is your point?

    The ID position? What would that be?

    So your "argument" is ignorance?

    You don't understand the concept of positive evidence do you?

    Yes I do and I presented it. OTOH you, being the thing you are, took what I posted out of context.

    But obviously YOU don't have any idea what positive evidence is as you cannot produce any for your position.

    That's like saying that the meaning of a sentence depends sharply on the words used to make it up.

    Not at all- and the words have to be defined- the words themselves convey nothing.

    When did the designer last act?

    Don't know and it isn't relevant.

  • Joe G says:

    OM,

    PART of the POSITIVE evidence for any and all design inferences is the negation/ elimination of all more simple explanations- this is called parsimony- Newton’s First Rule:

    "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."- Sir Isaac Newton

    Now why would we add entities? Well for one because they are required. Ya see one of the three basic questions that science asks is "How did it come to be this way"- "it" being the thing being investigating. It is why archaeologists add a designer when they determine they are looking at an artifact- it changes everything!

    Adding a designer is the difference between geology and archaeology- IOW it makes a huge difference as it changes everything.

    With biology Richard Dawkins and others have weighed in and correctly stated that we would be looking at a totally different type of biology- that alone is huge.

    So there you have it- why we add entities-> requirement and it changes the investigation.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    No- we start out with we don't know and only once nature, operating freely has been eliminated and some soecification met, we infer design.

    Please give me an example of where this has been done and where design has been inferred. Please provide the data that shows that all possible pathways to the object in question cannot be traversed by nature, operating freely.

    For the example please don't forget to include the "specification" you mention.

    Information, which is not reducible to matter and energy, has ben found inside living organisms.

    In what form was this information found? Was it perchance in the form of matter?

    ID survives because there isn't any feasible alternative and it has positive data to support it.

    Presumably that positive data would be the data mentioned in my first paragraph. Please provide it.

    You don't have any idea what "default" means. We don't know, then nature, operating freely, then design- it is the last thing to be considered.

    Please provide a list of objects where design was the last option to be considered and explain how you ruled out all other possible pathways for said objects.

    Nature, operating freely produces pebbles- no need to infer they are designed- what is your point?

    And you have determined this how, exactly?

    I've *never* seen nature produce a pebble.

    Ya see Joe, IOW the problem is that the pebble to you is "information" to everybody else. Most everybody else looks at "information" or rather (as I presume you mean) DNA in biological organisms and does not infer design.

    There is no need to infer design as those people are also aware of mechanisms that can generate such information. But here is where you play your "trick", or rather ID attempts to. I'm talking about DNA. You are talking about DNA and the OOL.

    You look at a pebble and do not infer design because you have a reasonable understanding of how pebbles can be created by the tides.

    Just like scientists look at DNA and do not infer design because they have a reasonable understanding of the mechanisms that have been discovered that are perfectly capable of creating and modifying such "information".

    So perhaps the problem is that you are just ignorant of those mechanisms, not that those mechanisms don't exist. And if you have an explanation for the OOL better then "it was designed" then plase provide it.

    Those people are you, looking at pebbles.

    But obviously YOU don't have any idea what positive evidence is as you cannot produce any for your position.

    I don't have to. My "position", rightly or wrongly, is it. It's the king on the throne. It's the meat in the burger. It's done, dusted and wiped clean.

    To knock off that king you'll have to pack more of a punch then what I've seen so far.

    But to everybody else the "king" is a nebulous collection of information that is the current best understanding and description of what we observe. It can't be slain because it has no heart. There is no silver bullet for this one. There is no single organ that would be fatal. Sometimes appendages wither and fall off, it's called science. It's self correcting.

    The only way you can defeat this monster is by playing it at a game. The only game it plays. The only game there is. And you don't even know the game goes on all day, every day. That noise you hear? That's the adults in the next room doing actual science.

    I asked you when the designer last acted and you said:
    Don't know and it isn't relevant.

    No? You've noted that you believe it's impossible for non-organic compounds to get to life right? So right there, that's where the designer acted?

    Yes or no?

  • Joe G says:

    OM:

    Most everybody else looks at "information" or rather (as I presume you mean) DNA in biological organisms and does not infer design.

    Actually the design inference is the dominant world view so most everybody infers design when they see living organisms.

    Just like scientists look at DNA and do not infer design because they have a reasonable understanding of the mechanisms that have been discovered that are perfectly capable of creating and modifying such "information".

    Actually that is a lie.

    My "position", rightly or wrongly, is it. It's the king on the throne. It's the meat in the burger. It's done, dusted and wiped clean.

    It is a pretend "king" as it has nothing to offer- so how did it get to the throne? Certainly not by the strenghth of positive evidence.

    Ya see OM you don't have anything but to attack ID with your ignorance of science.

  • Joe G says:

    No- we start out with we don't know and only once nature, operating freely has been eliminated and some soecification met, we infer design.

    Please give me an example of where this has been done and where design has been inferred.

    Every scientific investigative venue in which the root cause needs to be determined does that- for the very reasons provided. Again your ignorance of science and investigative techniques means nothing to me.

    Please provide the data that shows that all possible pathways to the object in question cannot be traversed by nature, operating freely.

    Not required- science is an inference and does not require absolute proof.

    Geez don't let those adults in the next room see how ignorant of science you are.

  • Joe G says:

    Throne King position:

    "Something happened, for no reason- just because- sometime in the past and then things kept happening, then more things happend and here we are"

    Is that about right?

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Actually the design inference is the dominant world view so most everybody infers design when they see living organisms.

    No, they don't.

    It is a pretend "king" as it has nothing to offer- so how did it get to the throne? Certainly not by the strenghth of positive evidence.

    Regardless, it can only be dethroned by a replacement that explains more, not less.

    Ya see OM you don't have anything but to attack ID with your ignorance of science.

    If asking the simplest of questions that naturally flow from your statements is "attacking" ID then you really are unprepared to support your case. Deflection.

    Every scientific investigative venue in which the root cause needs to be determined does that- for the very reasons provided.

    No, you are talking about a process where every path to a goal has been determined not to be physically possible. You said:

    The positive case for the design inference is if nature, operating freely cannot account for it

    That's different from "every scientific investigation".

    So when I ask for an example of design and how you ruled out all other possibilities then design you respond by saying that every scientific investigation is that example?

    Really? You must cringe as you write this tripe.

    Not required- science is an inference and does not require absolute proof.

    But Joe, you yourself said:

    And yes IF it is possible to go from non-organic compounds to life without any intervention other than chemistry and physics, then the designer hypothesis can be eliminated, if only for being the least parsimonious option (not to mention the complete lack of evidence for such a designer).

    Sounds like absolute proof to me. You require absolute proof that non-organic compounds cannot become alive before you'll discard "the design inference".

    Is that about right?

    What is it you think they spend years teaching people at University then in relation to Evolutionary Biology?

    If you are wondering do a simple google search.

    http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/jpitocch/evolution/evolsyllspr2006.html

    There's more detail on the first day of such a randomly picked course then ID has managed to provide in a decade.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Actually the design inference is the dominant world view so most everybody infers design when they see living organisms.

    Here's a video of a parasitoid wasp manipulating the brain of a cockroach:

    Design?

  • Joe G says:

    OM:

    No, you are talking about a process where every path to a goal has been determined not to be physically possible.

    Wrong again- you need to extend that a bit:

    Determined not to be physically possible via blind and undirected processes.

    And your position doesn't explain anything- it doesn't have any evidentiary support.

    BTW I said THIS:
    The positive case for the design inference is if nature, operating freely cannot account for it and it exhibits some specification- as in functionality (and yes the specification can be as simple as "it looks designed" because if something looks designed and no known natural (as contrasted with artificial) processes can account for it then we owe it to science to at least check into that possibility

    So stop chopping and selecting what you want. And we go by what we know as the science of today does not and cannot wait for what tomorrow may or may not uncover.

    AND as with ALL scientific inferences that means it can be falsified or it can be confirmed.

    OM:

    So when I ask for an example of design and how you ruled out all other possibilities then design you respond by saying that every scientific investigation is that example?

    Wow, just wow.

    One of the three basic questions science asks is "How did it come to be (this way)?" Given that PLUS Newton's First Rule- you do understand that rule- that is how science proceeds.

    So every scientific investigation does that and if they reach a design inference it is because they have eliminated nature, operating freely and also observed some specification.

    If an open window and wind can explain the mess of papers on the floor no need to start a criminal investigation.

    As for proof- that would mean I want evidence that life on this planet started via blind, undirect chemical processes. Not only that yours is the extraordinary claim so it would require that level of support.

    Throne King position:

    "Something happened, for no reason- just because- sometime in the past and then things kept happening, then more things happend and here we are"

    Is that about right?

    What is it you think they spend years teaching people at University then in relation to Evolutionary Biology?

    There isn't much to discuss that doesn't require a load of imagination.

    For example evolutionary biology can't even explain eukaryotes without resorting to a load of imagination- and that is just getting started.

    Here's a video of a parasitoid wasp manipulating the brain of a cockroach:

    Design?

    Umm scientists and people do much worse than that in the name of science, or whatever- ie by design.

    This is a sick world we live in. That could be by design or the result of random effects on the design.

  • Joe G says:

    I noticed they teach Mendellian genetics- do they tell the students he was a Creationist? How about Linneaus? Do they tell them that he was a Creationist searching for the Created Kinds when he developed binomial nomenclature?

    The father of genetics and the father of taxonomy- Creationists-> sitting on the throne!

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    I noticed they teach Mendellian genetics- do they tell the students he was a Creationist?

    That essentially sums up the confusion of the average IDer.

    Did you know that there are today many scientists who believe in God?

    Mendel being a creationist is irrelevant. The first sentence at Wikipedia should have clued you in:

    Mendelian inheritance (or Mendelian genetics or Mendelism) is a scientific description of how hereditary characteristics are passed from parent organisms to their offspring; it underlies much of genetics.

    It's a *scientific* description. The fact that he was a creationist (was he? I don't actually know, it does not matter to me in the slightest) is irrelevant as he was doing scientific work.

    So, Joe, why would they not tell the students that he was a creationist? Why would they?

    What is the point you are trying to make by bringing that up? Could it be that you don't have any answers to any of the simple questions I've asked on this thread regarding statements of claimed fact you've made and you want to change the subject?

    How about Linneaus? Do they tell them that he was a Creationist searching for the Created Kinds when he developed binomial nomenclature?

    That's right Joe. Creationists can be scientists too! What's your actual point?

    There are plenty of theistic scientists. There are plenty that are not. And?

    The father of genetics and the father of taxonomy- Creationists-> sitting on the throne!

    Science works on the basis of what you can demonstrate, not what you believe. When you understand that you'll perhaps drop some of the silly ideas about ID that you currently have as unsupportable tosh.

    Did you know that the first geologists were creationists out looking for evidence of a 6000 year old earth and Noah's flood? And they changed their minds because the evidence that they themselves found showed their idea could not have been right?

    And so the fathers of geology were Creationists but by following the evidence where it led were able to escape that prison.

    Are you as able as they were to discard deeply held beliefs as you learn more facts about the world?

    • Joe G says:

      OM:

      Science works on the basis of what you can demonstrate, not what you believe.

      And YOUR position can't demonstrate anything and relies entirely on belief.

      No details, nothing- just a glossy narrative as if imagination is a replacement for evidence.

      Did you know that the first geologists were creationists out looking for evidence of a 6000 year old earth and Noah's flood? And they changed their minds because the evidence that they themselves found showed their idea could not have been right?

      What would the evidence for such a thing even look like? IOW how did they know what to look for?

      BTW the only "belief" I have is the belie can determine the reality behind our existence- and guess what? THAT is all science cares about.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Wrong again- you need to extend that a bit:

    Determined not to be physically possible via blind and undirected processes.

    So give me such an example where that has been done!

    Just one!

    And your position doesn't explain anything- it doesn't have any evidentiary support.

    Just because you say it does not make it so. For example, a transitional fossil's location can be predicted, searched for and found using "my position". What can yours do in a similar vein?

    So every scientific investigation does that and if they reach a design inference it is because they have eliminated nature, operating freely and also observed some specification.

    But how to you "eliminate nature" unless you have a perfect understanding of how nature operates and what it can do?

    If an open window and wind can explain the mess of papers on the floor no need to start a criminal investigation.

    Did you notice any of the dozen of so questions you've chosen to ignore on this thread? Questions that flow naturally from the statements you've made also on this thread? Why is it that you believe in your position so strongly yet are unable to articulate a single sentence in defense of specific points?

    So is the wind "design" and the mess of papers "life" then? That's hardly a fitting analogy.

    As for proof- that would mean I want evidence that life on this planet started via blind, undirect chemical processes.

    So as evidence you want something which is, as I have already noted and you've ignored, possible in principle but not actually in practice?

    We can't set up such an experiment because simply setting up the experiment is design. As we don't know and will never know (probably) what the exact circumstances were at OOL how can we repeat it in a lab? Even if we just recreated the environment itself by somehow finding it out who's to say it did not take longer then we have to wait for it to happen?

    What we would need to do is clone the Earth, as it was billions of years ago, and video every place on the globe and under the sea and so on all without interfering with what originally happened in any way.

    Not only that yours is the extraordinary claim so it would require that level of support.

    Well, using that thing called an "inference" that you mentioned every actual scientist would say when the body of work on the OOL becomes sufficient to answer all their objections and has provided sufficient detail on potential pathways that they'd go "oh, I'm convinced".

    No level of evidence would be sufficient to convince those whose viewpoint is not based on evidence. As you've already admitted:

    Not only that yours is the extraordinary claim so it would require that level of support.

    It might require that level of support to you, but who are you exactly and why does it matter what you believe? They'll still keep teaching it even if Joe does not believe it.

    There isn't much to discuss that doesn't require a load of imagination.

    Why don't you take a course then, get a degree in a related field? If it's so easy?

    For example evolutionary biology can't even explain eukaryotes without resorting to a load of imagination- and that is just getting started.

    It's better then what you have to offer.

    "They were designed".

    Color me unimpressed by that level of detail.

    Umm scientists and people do much worse than that in the name of science, or whatever- ie by design.

    So you admit that wasp was directly, deliberately designed by "the designer"?

    This is a sick world we live in. That could be by design or the result of random effects on the design.

    Does it not worry you that you are pinning all your hopes on a "designer" who might well (and all evidence seems to indicate this, this is not the only example by a long shot of such things) be a twisted psychopath?

    So what do you mean by "random effects on the design"?

    When was the design corrupted by random effects?

    How do you *know* it was not designed like that in the first place?

    How do you *know* it *was* designed like that in the first place?

    And lastly, if it was "random errors" it seems that "random errors" have gained considerable ability since last time you mentioned them.

    Let's say the wasp's behavior at one time was not parasitic. It just was a wasp. So somehow via "random errors" it managed to develop an ability that on the face of it seems amazingly unlikely give that "random errors" can't do anything significant according to ID.

    So it seems to me that a "command and control" system of considerable complexity would be required to allow the wasp to control it's victim. A system specifically engineered to perform the required injection, connections etc.

    So we seem to have a bit of a quandary here Joe.

    One the one hand we have Evolution that is as impotent as ID makes it out to be. Random variations can't do much of anything at all really, just make things a bit worse on occasion. Therefore the wasp's behavior must be designed as evolution could not do such a thing.

    On the other hand if the design was "perfect" previously and the wasp was not a insect psychopath then random errors can do quite alot. If random errors can make a command and control system and allow a wasp to control another organism then it can make a hoof change or a wing develop. Those things are simple by comparison!

    So which is it Joe?

    Was the wasp designed or did it evolve it's parasitic behavior?

    Either way ID loses.

    • Joe G says:

      OM:

      Was the wasp designed or did it evolve it's parasitic behavior?

      Either way ID loses.

      1- Can you get any more stupid that that?

      2- ID is NOT anti-evolution

  • Joe G says:


    Determined not to be physically possible via blind and undirected processes.

    So give me such an example where that has been done!

    Any scientific investigation in which design was inferred- duh.

    And your position doesn't explain anything- it doesn't have any evidentiary support.

    Just because you say it does not make it so.

    What makes it so is that you don't have anything!

    For example, a transitional fossil's location can be predicted, searched for and found using "my position".

    1- transitional fossil is subjective

    2- transitional fossils do not say anything about a mechanism.

    But how to you "eliminate nature" unless you have a perfect understanding of how nature operates and what it can do?

    One does not need a "perfect" understanding and scientists eliminate nature on a daily basis- tat is how archaeology and forensic science work.

    Did you notice any of the dozen of so questions you've chosen to ignore on this thread?

    I noticed all the things you have ignored.

    No level of evidence would be sufficient to convince those whose viewpoint is not based on evidence.

    And YOUR viewpoint is not based on evidence.

    Thank you- we are done here- perhaps when your viewpoint has some supporting evidence we can have a discussion.

    Until then...

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Any scientific investigation in which design was inferred- duh.

    So no actual example relating to Intelligent Design is available then? Not a single one? The best you can do for an example of how nature was ruled out and design determined is "scientific investigation in which design was inferred- duh"?

    Interesting.

    And your position doesn't explain anything- it doesn't have any evidentiary support.

    It provides explanations for the observed fact of evolution. That you don't believe them is neither here nor there.

    1- transitional fossil is subjective

    Give an example of a transitional fossil then, if ID not anti-evolution that should not be a problem.

    2- transitional fossils do not say anything about a mechanism.

    I thought you did not believe there was such a thing in any case? I thought they were "subjective"? How can something you don't believe exists say anything about anything, never mind a mechanism?

    One does not need a "perfect" understanding and scientists eliminate nature on a daily basis- tat is how archaeology and forensic science work.

    The eliminate nature in favor of a mechanism known to be able to create the sort of artifacts in question - Human Beings.

    What mechanism is it that ID proposes designed life?

    Oh, that's right "Design" was the mechanism.

    I noticed all the things you have ignored.

    And everybody else noticed the perfectly reasonable questions you've ignored.

    And YOUR viewpoint is not based on evidence.

    Regardless, it is king. And to dethrone it all you have to do is come up with a better alternative. And here's a hint "design" is not sufficient.

    Thank you- we are done here- perhaps when your viewpoint has some supporting evidence we can have a discussion.

    About what? Why are you so concerned about "my viewpoint" and "supporting evidence" for "my viewpoint"? As noted, "My position" is "the position" and as such no further supporting evidence is needed - it's already been crowned.

    Rather it falls to you to make the case for ID independent of "my position". Even if you succeed in arguing away "my position" that does not support ID in any way whatsoever. You need positive evidence for that, not evidence that "my position" cannot do what it says it can do.

    So Joe, flail away at "my position" till the end of time but it won't advance the cause of ID at all!

    And let me remind you of what you've previously said:

    According to the definition of TRANSITION tiktaalik cannot be a transitional.

    IOW you evotards are redefining words to suit your needs.

    And you claim ID is not anti-evolution? Well transitional fossils are part and parcel of evolution so I guess ID is anti evolution as "my position" universality accepts Tiktaalik as a transitional.

    • Joe G says:

      Any scientific investigation in which design was inferred- duh.

      So no actual example relating to Intelligent Design is available then?

      Now what are you talking about? You wanted one thing and I gave it to you.

      Stop acting like an obtuse baby- unless it ain't an act.

      And YOUR viewpoint is not based on evidence.

      Regardless, it is king. And to dethrone it all you have to do is come up with a better alternative.

      Nope- SAME STANDARD means SAME level of explanation- and seeing your position doesn't explain anything...

      So Joe, flail away at "my position" till the end of time but it won't advance the cause of ID at all!

      man you are DENSE! Of course taking down your position advances ID! I provided the reasoning and you still ignored it- your willfull ignorance is laughable.

      ALL design inferences must first eliminate the more parsimonious explanations- duh.

      And you claim ID is not anti-evolution?

      It isn't.

      Well transitional fossils are part and parcel of evolution so I guess ID is anti evolution as "my position" universality accepts Tiktaalik as a transitional.

      Why would anyone accept Tiktaalik as a trasitional when it was found in the wrong place- according to Neil Shubin, one of the scientists who found it.

  • Joe G says:

    The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.

    How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and integrate them into one. The ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function.

    ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Now what are you talking about? You wanted one thing and I gave it to you.

    No, I wanted a specific example of a case where nature was ruled out and thus design was the only option. You chose to give a generic description "all scientific activity" rather then a specific example.

    Hint: Flagellum.

    And YOUR viewpoint is not based on evidence.

    Regardless, it is the dominant viewpoint and you can only change that by providing a better explanation for the observed evidence.

    And "it was designed" is not a better explanation.

    Nope- SAME STANDARD means SAME level of explanation- and seeing your position doesn't explain anything...

    Then it falls to you to explain why my position is dominant.

    man you are DENSE! Of course taking down your position advances ID! I provided the reasoning and you still ignored it- your willfull ignorance is laughable.

    No, in fact there are an infinite number of alternative explanations to the observed facts. ID is just one of them. Taking down my position does not automatically elevate ID as an alternative.

    ALL design inferences must first eliminate the more parsimonious explanations- duh.

    So give me an example of how you did that and what it was that you determined was designed.

    Why would anyone accept Tiktaalik as a trasitional when it was found in the wrong place- according to Neil Shubin, one of the scientists who found it.

    In fact you deny that transitional fossils, wherever they are found, are in fact transitional at all. Remember, my position has not evidence that the "transformations are even possible" and therefore they cannot be transitional, right?

    So, if the transformations are not possible between two fossils then that must indicate the designer acted directly to make the transition possible.

    So when I asked you when the designer acts you could have said "at the origin of life and at the point of which every fossil diverges from it's ancestors in any way". So in fact, as the transformations are not even possible, the designer acts all the time across billions of years.

    See how easy this is Joe? Yet you can't even bring yourself to admit that the consequence of your "not even possible" position is that the designer is required to act all the time. And if it acts all the time it's surprising that we don't see *any* evidence of that at all. Trillions of interventions and you can't even identify one? Methinks there is something wrong with your argument.

    How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and integrate them into one.

    I invite readers to view the thread where you made that claim and judge for themselves if you were able to justify that statement:

    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design-in.html

    There isn't any evidence that an accumulation of genetic accidents can construct useful, functional multi-part systems.

    IOW there isn't any biologist who can claim the flagellum arose via anything but design.

    ID is not anti-evolution? Really?

    often take two totally unrelated systems and integrate them into one

    Then ID does not predict a nested hierarchy. Can you give me an example of an organism that ID allows to exist but where my position says it cannot due to the limitations of the nested hierarchy?

    Bet ya can't! That would be one way ID provides an explanation that my position does not.

    • Joe G says:

      OM:

      No, I wanted a specific example of a case where nature was ruled out and thus design was the only option.

      That isn't what I claimed.

      OM:

      Then it falls to you to explain why my position is dominant.

      Lies and politics

      Of course taking down your position advances ID! I provided the reasoning and you still ignored it- your willfull ignorance is laughable.

      No, in fact there are an infinite number of alternative explanations to the observed facts. ID is just one of them. Taking down my position does not automatically elevate ID as an alternative.

      If we eliminate chance and necessity, physics and chemstry, ID is one of the few alternatives left and I would say they all get elevated.

      So give me an example of how you did that and what it was that you determined was designed.

      That is how archaeology and forensic science works- you tell by seeing what can account for it.

      Why would anyone accept Tiktaalik as a trasitional when it was found in the wrong place- according to Neil Shubin, one of the scientists who found it.

      In fact you deny that transitional fossils, wherever they are found, are in fact transitional at all.

      That has nothing to do with I just said and even YOU said in order to be a transitional it has to be found in between the two points.

      Remember, my position has not evidence that the "transformations are even possible"

      that is true- and I also said "transitional" boils down to "it looks like a transitional to me" because there isn't any evidence for the alleged transformation.

      ID is not anti-evolution? Really?

      Really- I have a comment held in moderation that proves ID is not anti-evolution- and you I have it posted on my blog.

      Then ID does not predict a nested hierarchy.

      So what? Blind, undirected chemical processes doesn't predict anything.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    That isn't what I claimed.

    You own words say otherwise.

    To test the design inference all one has to do is to demonstrate that the object/ event in question can arise via nature, operating freely- ie it is reducible to matter, energy, chance and necessity.

    If nature, operating freely can account for it then the design inference is unwarranted.

    So give an example of where you have demonstrated that nature operating feely cannot account for X.

    Of course taking down your position advances ID! I provided the reasoning and you still ignored it- your willfull ignorance is laughable.

    Does it?
    Why?
    There are other theories around then ID that claim to explain the observed fact of evolution. Why does ID automatically get elevated and others not?

    Why not Creationism?

    If we eliminate chance and necessity, physics and chemstry, ID is one of the few alternatives left and I would say they all get elevated.

    They can't all be true though can they? What separates ID from Creationism for example? Creationism has the advantage of actual evidence (the Bible) for it's position, if you choose not to believe what the Bible says fine but there's no reason to choose ID over Creationism that I can see.

    That is how archaeology and forensic science works- you tell by seeing what can account for it.

    So the parasitic wasp I mentioned, what accounts for that?

    It's either "design" or "corrupted design". How can ID differentiate between the two? If it can't what use is it?

    Why would anyone accept Tiktaalik as a trasitional when it was found in the wrong place- according to Neil Shubin, one of the scientists who found it.

    They accept it as a transitional because it is a transitional by any definition.

    That has nothing to do with I just said and even YOU said in order to be a transitional it has to be found in between the two points.

    It has everything to do with it because if you don't believe that transitional fossils are possible even in principle whatever evidence is presented then it illustrates the fact that your position is not based on evidence.

    that is true- and I also said "transitional" boils down to "it looks like a transitional to me" because there isn't any evidence for the alleged transformation.

    Yet nothing looks transitional to you, remember, because each subsequent variation can simply be assigned to "design" as the root cause.

    Really- I have a comment held in moderation that proves ID is not anti-evolution- and you I have it posted on my blog.

    ID notes, according to you, that transitional fossils are not possible. Therefore ID is anti-evolution.

    So what? Blind, undirected chemical processes doesn't predict anything.

    They predict a nested hierarchy of traits. And that's what we see.

    Design allows features to cross linages. We don't observe that. Therefore Design is disconfirmed.

    As I already asked, give a single example of an organism that is possible according to ID but impossible according to the nested hierarchy predicted by "my position".

    If you can do that then that would be supporting your claim. Until then your protestations are pure bluster.

  • Joe G says:

    Om:

    So give an example of where you have demonstrated that nature operating feely cannot account for X.

    Stonehenge- nature can account for the stones but not the formation.

    OM:

    ID notes, according to you, that transitional fossils are not possible.

    That isn't according to me and ID does not note that.

    If we eliminate chance and necessity, physics and chemstry, ID is one of the few alternatives left and I would say they all get elevated.

    They can't all be true though can they?

    Getting elevated doesn't make any of them true. What is wrong with you? You don't seem to be able to follow what I am saying.

    What separates ID from Creationism for example?

    As I have told you before- Creation is a specific subset of ID. If Creation turns out to be reality IDists will say "well that explains that".

    Why would anyone accept Tiktaalik as a trasitional when it was found in the wrong place- according to Neil Shubin, one of the scientists who found it.

    They accept it as a transitional because it is a transitional by any definition.

    It can't be- the fossil record shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods and the fishapods are supposed to be the transitional but they do not fit the definition- and they don't fit the definition YOU provided on my blog.

    So what? Blind, undirected chemical processes doesn't predict anything.

    They predict a nested hierarchy of traits.

    No, they don't as traits can be lost, gained or remain the same- you do understand your theory, don't you?

    If you think your position predicts a nested hierarchy based on traits then you don't know anything about your position nor nested hierarchies.

  • Joe G says:

    Can evolution make things less complicated?

    Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryotes, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

    Penny, who worked on the research with Chuck Kurland of Sweden's Lund University and Massey University's L.J. Collins, acknowledged that the results might come as a surprise.

    “We do think there is a tendency to look at evolution as progressive,” he said. “We prefer to think of evolution as backwards, sideways, and occasionally forward.”

    And that means it does not expect a nested hierarchy based on traits.

  • Joe G says:

    OM:

    Creationism has the advantage of actual evidence

    ID is based on the actual evidence- I presented a sample above and you ignored it as if your ignorance is a refutation.

    Strange, that...

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Stonehenge- nature can account for the stones but not the formation.

    While that may be the case your position is that you have to eliminate any possibility of nature accounting for the object in question.

    Simply saying "nature cannot account" for something does not actually demonstrate that nature cannot account for something. It is simply your opinion until you back it up with some actual evidence.

    You said:

    The positive case for the design inference is if nature, operating freely cannot account for it

    So please explain to me how you have determined that Nature cannot account for Stonehenge.

    If you can't do that for something like Stonehenge what chance do you have of doing it for something organic?

    Getting elevated doesn't make any of them true. What is wrong with you? You don't seem to be able to follow what I am saying.

    Yet that is at odds with what you said a moment ago:

    Of course taking down your position advances ID!

    So which is it?

    Why would anyone accept Tiktaalik as a trasitional when it was found in the wrong place- according to Neil Shubin, one of the scientists who found it.

    According to Neil Shubin what he found was a transitional fossil. Do you deny that?

    It can't be- the fossil record shows fish->tetrapods-> fishapods and the fishapods are supposed to be the transitional but they do not fit the definition- and they don't fit the definition YOU provided on my blog.

    So we have a number of choices:

    A) It's not a transitional.
    B) It is a transitional but you don't understand what you are talking about.

    I'll let the onlookers decide.

    So what? Blind, undirected chemical processes doesn't predict anything.

    It predicts a nested hierarchy.

    No, they don't as traits can be lost, gained or remain the same- you do understand your theory, don't you?

    It predicts a nested hierarchy. That traits can be lost, gained or remain the same does not change that. You might not be able to make a complete hierarchy because of that but you don't find any exceptions (except perhaps at the very base of the tree) to the rule that features cannot cross linages.

    I already asked for such an example but I guess you missed it.

    If you think your position predicts a nested hierarchy based on traits then you don't know anything about your position nor nested hierarchies.

    Or perhaps it's that your knowledge is insufficient? Given your avoidance of the simple questions I've posed so far I know what my choice would be.

    And that means it does not expect a nested hierarchy based on traits.

    Yet we observe exactly that. Why?

    ID is based on the actual evidence- I presented a sample above and you ignored it as if your ignorance is a refutation.

    Did you? What, you mean that link to your blog?

    http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-evidence-for-intelligent-design-in.html

    ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design.

    So please demonstrate how you determined that ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity. That would actually be called "evidence" for your claim.

    Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and intergrate them into one.

    Yet we don't see any dogs with echolocation. Nor cats with wings. All within a designers power, yet we simply don't see anything like that.

    We see a nested hierarchy of traits. We don't see innovations in one linage crossing over to unrelated linages.

    Perhaps you know better? Perhaps you can explain why the eye has evolved multiple times in multiple ways when the "designer" could just have given everything the same eye at the same time?

  • Joe G says:

    OM:

    Simply saying "nature cannot account" for something does not actually demonstrate that nature cannot account for something. It is simply your opinion until you back it up with some actual evidence.

    Simply saying "nature can account" for something does not actually demonstrate that nature can account for something. It is simply your opinion until you back it up with some actual evidence.

    Fixed that for ya.

    You said:

    The positive case for the design inference is if nature, operating freely cannot account for it and it exhibits some specification- as in functionality (and yes the specification can be as simple as "it looks designed" because if something looks designed and no known natural (as contrasted with artificial) processes can account for it then we owe it to science to at least check into that possibility.

    So please explain to me how you have determined that Nature cannot account for Stonehenge.

    It is all in the technical writings of archaeologists- but basically it goes like this- there are no known natural processes that can move those stones and put them in that formation. They looked for signs of glaciation and stuff like that.

    According to Neil Shubin what he found was a transitional fossil.

    According to you, on my blog, a transitional has to be between two points not outside of them. And according to Shubin- page 10 of his book- he said he should find evidence for the transition between those two points. Yet the evidence he found was not between those two points.

    So yes, if one defines a transitional as "it looks like one to me" then I am sure Shubin said he found one.

    So what? Blind, undirected chemical processes doesn't predict anything.

    It predicts a nested hierarchy.

    No, they don't as traits can be lost, gained or remain the same- you do understand your theory, don't you?

    It predicts a nested hierarchy.

    It can EXPLAIN it but it cannot predict it.

    That traits can be lost, gained or remain the same does not change that. You might not be able to make a complete hierarchy because of that but you don't find any exceptions (except perhaps at the very base of the tree) to the rule that features cannot cross linages.

    There isn't anything in the theory that prevents lines from being crossed. Darwin used reproductive isolation to explain the diversity- Creationists were the ones who predicted reproductive isolation.

    That said if a trait can be lost then conatainment is lost.

    If you think your position predicts a nested hierarchy based on traits then you don't know anything about your position nor nested hierarchies.

    Or perhaps it's that your knowledge is insufficient?

    Yet I can support my claims with the opinions of experts whereas you won't even produce an accepted definition of a nested hierarchy.

    So please demonstrate how you determined that ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity. That would actually be called "evidence" for your claim.

    I explained it in the blog.

    Yet we don't see any dogs with echolocation. Nor cats with wings. All within a designers power, yet we simply don't see anything like that.

    How do you know it is in the designer's power? Why isn't it in the blind watchmaker's power?

    Perhaps you can explain why the eye has evolved multiple times in multiple ways when the "designer" could just have given everything the same eye at the same time?

    Evolved from what? And how? And how do you know the designer could just have given everything the same eye?

    It seems all you have is one strawman after another.

    You said something about bluster, yet that is all you can muster.

  • Joe G says:

    As I previously posted:

    The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.

    How is this evidence for Intelligent Design? Cause and effect relationships as in designers often take two totally unrelated systems and integrate them into one-> the ordering of separate subsystems to produce a specific effect that neither can do alone. And those subsystems are composed of the ordering of separate components to achieve a specified function.

    ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity and also meets the criteria of design. (bold added because OM apparently missed it every other time he has read it)

    Next we take a look inside ATP synthase-

    “Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase”:

    Abstract:

    F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms. However, information about its energetics is limited compared to that of the reaction scheme. Actually, fundamental questions such as how efficiently F1-ATPase transduces free energy remain unanswered. Here, we demonstrated reversible rotations of isolated F1-ATPase in discrete 120° steps by precisely controlling both the external torque and the chemical potential of ATP hydrolysis as a model system of FoF1-ATP synthase. We found that the maximum work performed by F1-ATPase per 120° step is nearly equal to the thermodynamical maximum work that can be extracted from a single ATP hydrolysis under a broad range of conditions. Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase.

    Love those details.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Simply saying "nature can account" for something does not actually demonstrate that nature can account for something.

    Well, the below list can account for much of what we see about us. All have been explored in detail. Papers can be found for each.

    SOURCES OF HERITABLE VARIATION BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS IN POPULATIONS

    Gene Structure (in DNA)

    1) point mutations

    2) deletion and insertion (“frame shift” / "indel") mutations

    3) inversion and translocation mutations

    Gene Expression in Prokaryotes

    4) changes in promoter or terminator sequences (increasing or decreasing binding)

    5) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to operator sites

    6) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to inducers

    7) changes in repressor binding (in prokaryotes); increasing or decreasing binding to corepressors

    Gene Expression in Eukaryotes

    8) changes in activation factor function in eukaryotes (increasing or decreasing binding to promoters)

    9) changes in intron length, location, and/or editing by changes in specificity of SNRPs

    10) changes in interference/antisense RNA regulation (increasing or decreasing binding to sense RNAs)

    Gene Interactions

    11) changes in substrates or products of biochemical pathways

    12) addition or removal of gene products (especially enzymes) from biochemical pathways

    13) splitting or combining of biochemical pathways

    14) addition or alteration of pleiotropic effects, especially in response to changes in other genes/traits

    Eukaryotic Chromosome Structure

    15) gene duplication within chromosomes

    16) gene duplication in multiple chromosomes

    17) inversions involving one or more genes in one chromosome

    18) translocations involving one or more genes between two or more chromosomes

    19) deletion/insertion of one or more genes via transposons

    20) fusion of two or more chromosomes or chromosome fragments

    21) fission of one chromosome into two or more fragments

    22) changes in chromosome number via nondisjunction (aneuploidy)

    23) changes in chromosome number via autopolyploidy (especially in plants)

    24) changes in chromosome number via allopolyploidy (especially in plants)

    Eukaryotic Chromosome Function

    25) changes in regulation of multiple genes in a chromosome as a result of the foregoing structural changes

    26) changes in gene expression as result of DNA methylation

    27) changes in gene expression as result of changes in DNA-histone binding

    Genetic Recombination

    28) the exchange of non-identical genetic material between two or more individuals (i.e. sex)

    29) lateral gene transfer via plasmids and episomes (especially in prokaryotes)

    30) crossing-over (reciprocal and non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in meiosis

    31) crossing-over (non-reciprocal) between sister chromatids in mitosis

    32) Mendelian independent assortment during meiosis

    33) hybridization

    Genome Structure and Function

    34) genome reorganization and/or reintegration

    35) partial or complete genome duplication

    36) partial or complete genome fusion

    Development (among multicellular eukaryotes, especially animals)

    37) changes in tempo and timing of gene regulation, especially in eukaryotes

    38) changes in homeotic gene regulation in eukaryotes

    39) genetic imprinting, especially via hormone-mediated DNA methylation

    Symbiosis

    40) partial or complete endosymbiosis

    41) partial or complete incorporation of unrelated organisms as part of developmental pathways (especially larval forms)

    42) changes in presence or absence of mutualists, commensals, and/or parasites

    Behavior/Neurobiology

    43) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community

    44) changes in behavioral anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment

    45) learning (including effects of use and disuse)

    Physiological Ecology

    46) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in biotic community

    47) changes in anatomy, histology, and/or physiology in response to changes in abiotic environment

    From Here: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2007/10/rm-ns-creationist-and-id-strawman.html

    It is simply your opinion until you back it up with some actual evidence.

    That's right. You've just described your own position perfectly.

    • Joe G says:

      OM,

      I have been over with with Allen McNeil also- as far as you know those mechanisms are design mechanisms- only prejudice says all genetic changes are due to blind, undirected chemical processes.

      And oddly enough not one of those mechanisms has been observed to produce anything close to ATP synthase.

      • OM says:

        Joe,
        only prejudice says all genetic changes are due to blind, undirected chemical processes.

        I'm open to alternative explanations. Can you provide one?

        Can you tell me what genetic changes are not due to undirected processes?

        Or is it just "some" of them? If you can't point to a single one and unambiguously say "design" then why do you even hold this viewpoint? On what basis do you hold it?

        Should I go read "Not by Chance" by any chance? Or perhaps you could summarize your actual point?

        And oddly enough not one of those mechanisms has been observed to produce anything close to ATP synthase.

        No, and what of it?

        Oddly enough we've never found any evidence that life was designed other then the (claimed by you) inability of evolutionary mechanisms to bring it about.

        I have been over with with Allen McNeil also

        Were did you publish the paper?

        ATP is the most commonly used "energy currency" of cells from most organisms. So evolution predicts something because of that Joe. Can you tell me what it is? And then that might explain why not one of those mechanisms has been observed to produce anything close to ATP synthase.

        If you can't think of the answer I'll be glad to help you out. Just say.

        • Joe G says:

          OM:

          I'm open to alternative explanations. Can you provide one?

          I have provided at least two:

          1- targeted search

          2- built-in responses to environmental cues

          And oddly enough not one of those mechanisms has been observed to produce anything close to ATP synthase.

          No, and what of it?

          It just shows that you don't have any evidence for your position- your throne is worthless.

          Oddly enough we've never found any evidence that life was designed other then the (claimed by you) inability of evolutionary mechanisms to bring it about.

          Sorry but you are a liar- 1- evolutionary mecahanisms apply AFTER living organisms arrive 2- only PART of the design inference states that BLIND, UNDIRECTED chemical processes cannot do it. The design inference itself comes from the intricate specifications we find inside.

          have been over with with Allen McNeil also

          Were did you publish the paper?

          Why is that required? No one has put it in peer-review that those mechanisms are blind, undirected chemical processes.

          ATP is the most commonly used "energy currency" of cells from most organisms.

          Yes, I know and your position doesn't have anything that could possibly explain its existence. That should be a problem but you try to turn it into something good for your position.

          You don't appear to understand how science operates.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    there are no known natural processes that can move those stones and put them in that formation.

    So in the entire universe, billions of planets, there is no way that some stones could enter that formation naturally?

    How have you determined that?

    They looked for signs of glaciation and stuff like that.

    Did they? And "stuff like that" is how they ruled out natural causes is it?

    According to you, on my blog, a transitional has to be between two points not outside of them.

    According to Shubin, it's a transitional. According to you, it's not.

    Out of the two of you who is a published credentialed scientist who actually knows what they are talking about?

    Yet the evidence he found was not between those two points.

    Nonetheless, it's a transitional.

    So yes, if one defines a transitional as "it looks like one to me" then I am sure Shubin said he found one.

    If you define "it looks like one to me" as "I'll study this field for many years sufficient to understand what I'm looking at and draw conclusions based on the evidence" then yes, that's right.

    It can EXPLAIN it but it cannot predict it.

    Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy and explains it once observed.

    There isn't anything in the theory that prevents lines from being crossed.

    Can't recall I've seen many cats using echolocation.

    Can you give an example of "lines being crossed" then? If not, what's your point?

    Creationists were the ones who predicted reproductive isolation.

    You seem to know alot about what the Creationists think Joe. Why is that?

    If you think your position predicts a nested hierarchy based on traits then you don't know anything about your position nor nested hierarchies.

    Tell it to the scientists at Berkeley.

    Evolution predicts that living things will be related to one another in what scientists refer to as nested hierarchies—rather like nested boxes. Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness. This is indeed what we observe in the living world and in the fossil record and these relationships can be illustrated as shown below.

    http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

    Yet I can support my claims with the opinions of experts whereas you won't even produce an accepted definition of a nested hierarchy.

    Just did.

    I explained it in the blog.

    Many people here won't want to dirty themselves reading your "blog" so why don't you repeat it here.

    How do you know it is in the designer's power? Why isn't it in the blind watchmaker's power?

    Joe, Joe, Joe. If a designer can create biological life from scratch and hang around for literally billions of years intervening constantly without ever being caught in the act then it can make a cat with wings......

    And how do you know the designer could just have given everything the same eye?

    See above.

    • Joe G says:

      there are no known natural processes that can move those stones and put them in that formation.

      So in the entire universe, billions of planets, there is no way that some stones could enter that formation naturally?

      Nice goal-post move- we are only concerned with what we have here on earth.

      According to you, on my blog, a transitional has to be between two points not outside of them.

      According to Shubin, it's a transitional.

      Right because his criteria is "It looks like a transitional to me".

      According to what Shubin wrote evidence for the transition would be found in different strata. He seems to be a little wishy-washy.

      Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy and explains it once observed.

      Not based on traits. Ya see there isn't any nested hierarchy observed with prokaryotes and obviously evolution explains them- later gene transfer wrecks any chance at a nested hierarchy.

      So if it is OK for no nested hierarchy, well then you can't really have it both ways.

      There isn't anything in the theory that prevents lines from being crossed.

      Can't recall I've seen many cats using echolocation.

      So what? There still isn't anything that prevents it.

      Creationists were the ones who predicted reproductive isolation.

      You seem to know alot about what the Creationists think Joe. Why is that?

      It's called KNOWLEDGE- something you seem to be afraid of.

      Did you not notice that Berkley never defined a nested hierarchy?

      Did you not know that nested hierarchies were once used as evidence for a common design and all evos did was take what Creationists made, dlete "archetype" and put in "common ancestor".

      If a designer can create biological life from scratch and hang around for literally billions of years intervening constantly without ever being caught in the act then it can make a cat with wings......

      Wow, you are really confused.

      So you don't know anything, you think your strawmen mean something and you are totally ignorant of ID.

      That about sums it up...

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Love those details.

    And therefore ID?

    ATP synthase is not reducible to chance and necessity

    Please explain how you determined that.

    • Joe G says:

      Yeah therefor ID given the evidence:

      The ATP Synthase is a system that consists of two subsystems-> one for the flow of protons down an electrochemical gradient from the exterior to the interior and the other (a rotary engine) that generates ATP from ADP using the energy liberated by proton flow. These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.

  • Joe G says:

    OM:

    Many people here won't want to dirty themselves reading your "blog" so why don't you repeat it here.

    YOU are the one who keeps linking to my blog and I did repeat it here.

    IOW thanks for proving that you are a total jerk- as if we needed more proof.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    Nice goal-post move- we are only concerned with what we have here on earth.

    In fact we're not. The more planets like earth the more common life will be. The more planets out there, the higher chance that a natural rock formation will be created that looks like stonehenge.

    According to you, on my blog, a transitional has to be between two points not outside of them.

    I'll take pity on you then. Time and relatives are two different things.

    Right because his criteria is "It looks like a transitional to me".

    Then please explain to me what an actual transitional would be?

    According to what Shubin wrote evidence for the transition would be found in different strata. He seems to be a little wishy-washy.

    Shubin found a transitional fossil.

    Not based on traits. Ya see there isn't any nested hierarchy observed with prokaryotes and obviously evolution explains them- later gene transfer wrecks any chance at a nested hierarchy.

    And so what? I already mentioned that, you just did not even notice.

    Tell it to the scientists at Berkeley Joe, tell it to the scientists at Berkeley.

    There still isn't anything that prevents it.

    No, but we'd don't see it do we? Ever think about why that is? A designer could mix and match features like Mr Potato head.

    Did you not notice that Berkley never defined a nested hierarchy?

    Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.

    Did you not know that nested hierarchies were once used as evidence for a common design and all evos did was take what Creationists made, dlete "archetype" and put in "common ancestor".

    Yes. And so? Once again, Creationists can do good science. As long as they are doing science it's science.

    Wow, you are really confused.

    In fact it's you who won't go on the record as to something as trivial as to when you think the designer acted or acts. Was it just the once (must have been as you believe OOL was designed) or was it all the time (must have been as the "transformations are not even possible" to allow evolution to occur)?

    So you don't know anything, you think your strawmen mean something and you are totally ignorant of ID.

    It seems I know more about ID then you do as I'm providing the answers you can't or won't.

    • Joe G says:

      OM:

      The more planets like earth the more common life will be.

      Only if design is involved, otherwise one doesn't follow the other.

      According to you, on my blog, a transitional has to be between two points not outside of them.

      I'll take pity on you then.

      Yeah for thinking you were man enough to stand up to what you said.

      Time and relatives are two different things.

      Relatives and transitionals are two different things.

      According to what Shubin wrote evidence for the transition would be found in different strata. He seems to be a little wishy-washy.

      Shubin found a transitional fossil.

      Got it, a "transitional" that camme AFTER the transition. Unfortunately he said he was looking for evidence of the transition and should find it between two points. Obviously he did not find it between those two points.

      Not based on traits. Ya see there isn't any nested hierarchy observed with prokaryotes and obviously evolution explains them- later gene transfer wrecks any chance at a nested hierarchy.

      And so what? I already mentioned that, you just did not even notice.

      So your position is OK with or without a nested hierarchy which means it does not predict either- duh.

      Tell it to the scientists at Berkeley Joe, tell it to the scientists at Berkeley.

      All they have is a bald declaration without any definition of a nested hierarchy.

      There still isn't anything that prevents it.

      No, but we'd don't see it do we?

      Right so that should count against your theory as it expects everything and anything.

      Groups of related organisms share suites of similar characteristics and the number of shared traits increases with relatedness.

      LoL! That is a definition of a clade. It is not a definition of a nested hierarchy.

      In fact it's you who won't go on the record as to something as trivial as to when you think the designer acted or acts.

      It is an irrelevant distraction put on by an obtuse evo.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.

    That's not evidence. That's opinion. You can put it in bold as many times as you like, it's still not evidence.

    • Joe G says:

      These two processes are totally unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other. Yet here they are.

      That's not evidence.

      Of course it is. Geez you don't know anything about evidence either.

      If the processes are unrelated from a purely physiochemical perspective- meaning there isn't any general principle of physics nor chemistry by which these two processes have anything to do with each other, then all you have left is sheer dumb luck or design.

  • OM says:

    Joe,
    YOU are the one who keeps linking to my blog and I did repeat it here.

    IOW thanks for proving that you are a total jerk- as if we needed more proof.

    It's linked to in your name in every comment you write. What are you so afraid of? That people will see you for what you really are?

    As to your other comment, I'll think I'll leave it there with you as the nice people at scientopia probably won't want to see what other tricks you can do.

    Night folks. Hope it's been instructive as to the fundy mindset. Apologies for cluttering up your thread with creationist randomness.

    • Joe G says:

      Many people here won't want to dirty themselves reading your "blog" so why don't you repeat it here.

      YOU are the one who keeps linking to my blog and I did repeat it here.

      IOW thanks for proving that you are a total jerk- as if we needed more proof.

      It's linked to in your name in every comment you write.

      Yes I know and you have also linked to it and then said:

      Many people here won't want to dirty themselves reading your "blog" so why don't you repeat it here

      It's as if you are totally unaware of what you do or you are just a jerk.