12 Mar 09
Originally posted by PBE6DeepThought thinks DeepThought will have considerable problems doing that. This is one for the experts. It depends critically on what order things come in, RNA ribosomes, DNA, metabolism (proteins), cell membranes, or other cell structures. My training is in physics not in biology. I simply do not know enough about this stuff to say anything definitive without too larger chance of getting it wrong.
I think DeepThought will have no trouble doing that. But first...do us a favour and tell us what was involved in designer formation.
At what point do you stop regarding these things as natural chemical factories and start regarding them as living? I´d have to do considerable research to do this, which KellyJay knows. This is a debating trick - he´s requiring that we justify our theory rather than justifying his. Since he has not provided one jot of supporting evidence for a designer hypothesis I don´t regard justifying abiogenesis with a detailed model as something this side of the debate should be required to do.
I think the most important components are ribosomes. They are capable of providing heredity and metabolism. Proteins and long term storage with DNA come later - after colonization of lipid bi-layers produced the first cell like structures. The RNA copied itself and more structures evolved over time in response to changing environmental conditions to manage the newly acquired cell membrane.
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm not asking for a paper for the ages here, ground breaking only the
DeepThought thinks DeepThought will have considerable problems doing that. This is one for the experts. It depends critically on what order things come in, RNA ribosomes, DNA, metabolism (proteins), cell membranes, or other cell structures. My training is in physics not in biology. I simply do not know enough about this stuff to say anything definiti ...[text shortened]... ime in response to changing environmental conditions to manage the newly acquired cell membrane.
best brightest among us knows, only a high level this is basically the
shape, the parts involved, the functions it must have. Give me a
couple of the basics, I'm not going to grade you on your selection,
I want to attack your list as a process project. Can we get our life
form without any plan purpose and design to do this without direction
from any source outside of the natural laws we know about acting
upon it? My complaints about evolution almost always revolve around
process, is it probable at all?
I’ve repeatedly have said the debate is around intentional design
or no design at all, and as I have pointed out before that does not
have to mean God did it.
Kelly
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by PBE6Well, if you want to again talk to someone about a designer that is
What if the designer weren't God? Remember, we're talking about Intelligent Design here, and not Christianity. If the designer were not God, then would the designer necessarily be designed, or is it possible that the designer wasn't designed?
not God, then find someone to carry on that conversation with you.
I'm more concern about the process, which so far everyone agrees
occurs, but the how and why behind it remains in doubt.
Kelly
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayKellyJay, it's a simple question: does the designer, any designer, need to be designed or not?
Well, if you want to again talk to someone about a designer that is
not God, then find someone to carry on that conversation with you.
I'm more concern about the process, which so far everyone agrees
occurs, but the how and why behind it remains in doubt.
Kelly
For example, if you have an interior designer redecorate your house, your argument applies to her as well. You claim that the interior designer was designed. So who designed the interior designer's designer?
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOops, sorry, got swept away by the whole thing... 😳
DeepThought thinks DeepThought will have considerable problems doing that. This is one for the experts. It depends critically on what order things come in, RNA ribosomes, DNA, metabolism (proteins), cell membranes, or other cell structures. My training is in physics not in biology. I simply do not know enough about this stuff to say anything definiti ...[text shortened]... ime in response to changing environmental conditions to manage the newly acquired cell membrane.
12 Mar 09
Originally posted by PBE6No, as I pointed out already had you read my posts.
KellyJay, it's a simple question: does the designer, any designer, need to be designed or not?
For example, if you have an interior designer redecorate your house, your argument applies to her as well. You claim that the interior designer was designed. So who designed the interior designer's designer?
Kelly
13 Mar 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasSeconded. Take that fictional god back to Spirituality where he belongs.
Please, don't let this thread become a thread about religion.
There is already a Forum for Spiritual and religious things, like designers.
Let this thread remain a scientific thread.
Please...
13 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayHere's the skinny one more time:
Yes, the God I believe in exists without being designed. Any other
designer you want to describe will be up to you to describe them.
Kelly
You don't believe that evolution could account for all the variation and complexity you see around you because you think it's highly improbable. Your solution to the problem of the existence of this variation and complexity is to introduce the concept of "the designer", an entity able to act by any means necessary to achieve the variation and complexity you see around you with intent, thereby making the process certain instead of probable (or improbable, as you claim).
The problem with this is that "the designer" itself must have either been (a) designed or (b) not designed, there is no other logical option. There are problems with either answer:
(a) If the designer was designed, then who designed the designer's designer? This leads to an infinite regression.
(b) If the designer was not designed, then the designer came about as the result of some process undertaken without intent, basically springing into existence spontaneously. Considering the relative complexity of the designer, this is highly improbable. If you accept that entities can be created in this mind-bogglingly improbable way, then claiming that the evolution of something like the human eye is too improbable to have happened is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
13 Mar 09
Originally posted by PBE6This is far to complicated for KellyJay to understand.
(b) If the designer was not designed, then the designer came about as the result of some process undertaken without intent, basically springing into existence spontaneously. Considering the relative complexity of the designer, this is highly improbable. If you accept that entities can be created in this mind-bogglingly improbable way, then claiming that the e ...[text shortened]... human eye is too improbable to have happened is a little like the pot calling the kettle black.
He didn't understand this problem when it was presented for him the last time, odds are slim that he will understand it now.
13 Mar 09
Originally posted by PBE6I again, will leave it up to you to descrbe your designer, you want
No, you only said that God could exist without design. You didn't say anything about any other kind of designer.
to talk about one be specific. I intend to talk about the process,
if you want to change the subject to a designer, please do so.
Kelly
13 Mar 09
Originally posted by KellyJayI´m still thinking about what properties an early cell would have to have
I again, will leave it up to you to descrbe your designer, you want
to talk about one be specific. I intend to talk about the process,
if you want to change the subject to a designer, please do so.
Kelly
maybe tomorrow
.
I assume that your position is evolution by design rather than one single creation event for all species? If we are talking about a process then the nature of a designer becomes important. Designer interventions could be at the cell bio-chemistry level, or just seeding life and then giving natural selection a helping hand with the occasional asteroid. I think the modus operandi of the designer is relevant and therefore the nature of the designer.