expelled

Originally posted by timebombted
Of course going from non life to non life is easier than non life to life, an obvious an non argueable point. However, you stating / hinting at machines requiring a designer gives absolutely no weight to your arguement that life needs a designer. So it really is a pointless analogy that everyone with more than a single brain cell can see straight through ...[text shortened]... r experiment........... which YOU probably believe is the only grasp science has on abiogenesis.

Can you show me a machine that does not require design? I keep
asking people to stop bringing up mythical creatures to this, they have
no part of this discussion. I will not call you ignorant in this discussion
could you treat me the same way from here on out?

I would also point out that Urey and Miller had design built into it as
well, if you saw it there was areas that were put in place to cause
certain actions to occur and not occur by design
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
[...] ID and evolution can
both be true and in complete agreement with each other with respect
to reality, the only difference between the two as they are accepted
now is the verbiage "this can happen over time with small changes"
when being applied to very complex changes occurring. The area where
ID disagrees with some of the current evolutionary the ...[text shortened]... players
here we make predictions on patters all the time in the game we love
to play.
Kelly

I fail to see any scientific predictions made by ID.
To further emphasize my point - I can't see any scientific predictions that can possibly be made by ID*.

Regarding
Originally posted by KellyJay
We for the most part are all chess players
here we make predictions on patters all the time in the game we love
to play.

I do not think that this is a valid analogy, neither do I understand what you are attempting to imply using it

*I do have in mind some findings, that, if found, will help ID (or at the very least will be problematic to the evolution theory), but only the opposite was found as yet.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think life is little more than that, at least the life I interact with on
a daily bases is.
Kelly

Good for you - otherwise, your daily life would be a lot more boring !

However, our colleague Penguin described what is necessary for life - life at its very beginning, one might add.

Once you get these basic life forms - well, it's takes only evolution till you reach the life forms you interact with (humans, plants, animals, bacteria, ect.).

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think you should look at these two statements, according to your
words the process evolution does not speak to abiogenesis, please
clear this up for me. I'm sure I'm not reading you point correctly,
you cannot have people self-replicating and say evolution can tell
us about the beginning of life, if the beginning of life and evolution
are not part of the same subject.
[/b]

KellyJay, to answer that, I'll just first requote what you where quoting:

Originally posted by Penguin
"At some point the discussion of how did everything get here must be made, but it is a different subject.
And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution."

Also originally posted by Penguin
"Well, people make people: they are self-replicating and so evolution
can explain people coming, eventually, from simple self-replicating
chemical structures. No barriers to the process have been found, even
though some people have suggested that It Just Can't Be. These first
structures may even be simple enough to have come about through
chance alone although much work still needs to be done to
demonstrate the actual likelihood of that. "

You are right - the theory of evolution (as it concerns itself only with living organisms) is not about abiogenesis.
However, the word evolution can mean two things in our context - the first is , indeed, the theory of evolution, while the other is the process of evolution (a bit confusing? please bear with me).

The process of evolution is (according to the theory of evolution) the process that leads from early life forms to the life forms we see today, but it is a broader concept - the concept of a process that results from multiplication, random (or, to be more exact, blind) modification and selection (rinse, repeat).
For example, you can use evolutionary computation for software.

Anyway, abiogenesis can be driven by an evolutionary process while still not being a part of the Theory of Evolution.

Questions?



Edits : Those pesky "[ b ]" tags. Haha.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you show me a machine that does not require design? I keep
asking people to stop bringing up mythical creatures to this, they have
no part of this discussion. I will not call you ignorant in this discussion
could you treat me the same way from here on out?

I would also point out that Urey and Miller had design built into it as
well, if you saw it ...[text shortened]... s areas that were put in place to cause
certain actions to occur and not occur by design
Kelly

You still have not shown any reason to accept artificial machines as analogs to organisms and/or parts thereof.
Until they are shown to be analogs no valid analogy can be made.

Originally posted by KellyJay
"...and when you can ask those people about the design process, you can be pretty sure that cars are designed by an intelligence. "

So the only reason you do not accept design is you cannot ask about
it, you cannot see if for yourself?
Kelly

We cannot see the factory, we cannot see the original blueprints, we cannot see a designer creating a design and we cannot talk to the designer.

Actually, the factory is the parent organism itself and the blueprints are the dna but we certainly can't see a designer creating a design and neither can we talk to the designer. Even if we could, to fully explain a designed object, you must explain the designer.

I suppose in essence, you may be right there, to really accept design, you must have access to the designer. The only 'designer' that has been suggested that is able to explain life is the blind, unintelligent designer of Natural Selection.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I think life is little more than that, at least the life I interact with on
a daily bases is.
Kelly

Yes, some forms of life are extremely complicated self-replicating structures that are able to interact with each other and even contemplate their own existence but they are still essentially just self-replicating structures, just as a coat is essentially just a collection of threads

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]"At some point the discussion of how did everything get here must be
made, but it is a different subject.
And yet you won't admit that abiogenesis is a different subject to evolution."

"Well, people make people: they are self-replicating and so evolution
can explain people coming, eventually, from simple self-replicating
chemical structures. No b ...[text shortened]... f life, if the beginning of life and evolution
are not part of the same subject.
Kelly

Don't think I did say evolution can tell us about the beginning of life (self-replicating structures). I certainly did not intend to.

I said evolution (and I meant evolution by natural selection) can explain how complex life such as people developed from simple self-replicating structures. How those simple self-replicating structures came about cannot be explained by evolution by natural selection.

The problems with ID are that
1) it says the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection (ToEbNS) can't explain the development of complex life but does not back that assertion up with any examples of where Evolution by natural selection fails. It just says that life is too complex.
2) it asserts that life is so complex that is must have came about through the an intelligent agent. However any such agent must be even more complex and so does not fully explain life. It actually makes the problem harder!

Evolution, I will grant, also does not fully explain life since it does not explain abiogenesis. However the appearance of simple self-replicating structures is being researched, hypotheses are being tested and the whole problem is lot more likely to yield an answer than trying to explain something even more complicated than us.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you show me a machine that does not require design? I keep
asking people to stop bringing up mythical creatures to this, they have
no part of this discussion. I will not call you ignorant in this discussion
could you treat me the same way from here on out?

I would also point out that Urey and Miller had design built into it as
well, if you saw it ...[text shortened]... s areas that were put in place to cause
certain actions to occur and not occur by design
Kelly

Machines (non living) require design - agreed, because they do NOT have sub-components that have a natural affinity to form bonds with each other i.e. a car does not self assemble, weld, screw, bolt etc.

Once you have the first machine (non living), they then have no way of self replicating to reproduce offspring. The machine (non living) contains no code which can mutate, recombine etc to create diversity at each generation (i.e evolve).

Thats all you analogy proves - NON LIVING machines require design, we can agree on this.

It has no weight in a discussion about abiogenesis and / or evolution, because it is NOT an accurate analogy. A pointless point.

The sub-components of LIFE (living machines if you like) have a natural affinity to each other i.e they can form chemical bonds without intervention. Life can then self replicate, life can reproduce, life has a mutating recombining code which creates diversity (evolution).

Do you honestly not see why your point is in no way analogous?

(Apologies if my frustrated comments have caused offence)

Originally posted by KellyJay

I would also point out that Urey and Miller had design built into it as
well, if you saw it there was areas that were put in place to cause
certain actions to occur and not occur by design
Kelly

Of course any experiment has design built in, its a manipulative medium to test a hypothesis. Just because it was an experiment does that mean it automatically becomes falsifiable in your opinion?

For example:

In nature, without any intervention hydrogen and oxygen can form a bond to form H20 (i.e water).

We then recreate this in the lab by designing an experiment to bring hydrogen and oxygen in contact with each other, to test if this is how water forms.

Just because we DESIGNED this experiment to replicate natural conditions to show how water is formed, does that now mean (in your opinion) that ALL water needs a DESIGNER for it to be created.

I see in no way how an experiment supports the need for ID?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can you show me a machine that does not require design? I keep
asking people to stop bringing up mythical creatures to this, they have
no part of this discussion. I will not call you ignorant in this discussion
could you treat me the same way from here on out?

I would also point out that Urey and Miller had design built into it as
well, if you saw it ...[text shortened]... s areas that were put in place to cause
certain actions to occur and not occur by design
Kelly

Can you show me a machine that does not require design?

Yes. Biological organisms. There are trillions of them

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]Can you show me a machine that does not require design?

Yes. Biological organisms. There are trillions of them[/b]ou

You realize that we are discussing if life was made by ID or not.
So your example of the very topic in dispute is something that is
self evident, in your opinion, how scientific of you. That has to
right up there with, we just project the numbers, it has to be right.

You have another example or is that all you got?
Kelly

Originally posted by Retrovirus
Good for you - otherwise, your daily life would be a lot more boring !

However, our colleague Penguin described what is necessary for life - life at its very beginning, one might add.

Once you get these basic life forms - well, it's takes only evolution till you reach the life forms you interact with (humans, plants, animals, bacteria, ect.).

Yes, once you get them, but how do you get them? Not denying they
are here, nor am I denying that we see processes here in the now as
well. The processes like life, had to start some where, some how.

Which is why I do not think claiming ID shows evolution is wrong, it
only speaks to the beginning of the process, and how it is possible to
get past some of the more difficult parts of evolution where no one
has a clue how somethings could have been done in evolution.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not saying it isn't science, what I'm asking you is if you learn
something yet cannot predict with it that isn't science in your opinion?
Kelly

I don't know if it's possible to learn something and not be able to make predictions based on that knowledge. Do you have an example?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Wow so companies like Ford, GM, 3M, Motorola, Intel, and AMD are all
like magic to you? Since they design things and make them out of the
material they have available to them?
Kelly

The people who run those companies are quite easy to find and talk to unless they're dead or hiding. We know Ford was made by intelligent design because we have detailed records of the entire history of Ford, the people involved, exactly how, what, where, when they did things. We didn't assume an intelligent designer - we watched him as he designed and built the company!

Where's the guy who ID'd the universe?