24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton==================================
[b]….Starting when? ….
-about 4.45 billion years ago:
http://www.tellmehowto.net/answer/when_did_life_start_on_earth_118
…Does this "striking fact about life" include the first life that existed? ..…
No -because the first life must have been a very simple and crude single cell.
….Does this "equipment necessary for succes he same word play you are using here.
-so the answer to your question is “yes“.
….Starting when? ….
-about 4.45 billion years ago:
http://www.tellmehowto.net/answer/when_did_life_start_on_earth_118
=================================== [/b]
Starting 4.45 billion years ago after a gap between the existence of the first living organism and its subject to the first instance of Natural Selection.
In that gap we must insert "faith". Like a piece of music with no opening measure, somehow it all gets started.
Why was not biological Natural Selection incolved in the coming about of the first biological entity? If the biological Evolutionists can't answer, who can?
==========================================
…Does this "striking fact about life" include the first life that existed? ..…
No -because the first life must have been a very simple and crude single cell.
======================================
If no fossil or no record we can't know for sure.
This "fossils hoped for" and "links unseen".
Like a parody of Hebrews 11:1 in the KJV
"Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for and the evidence of links unseen."
======================================
….Does this "equipment necessary for success in life - or at least for a fighting chance" include the small amount of life of the first organism? Does it include the "fighting chance" of the first organism? ...…
Yes and yes.
============================
You are not discribing that for the first organism. You are assuming that it came with it.
How did the first organimsm obtain this equipment necessary?
======================================
…It is not an extraordinary inquiry to expect an explanation of how something described as applying to "all organisms" could possibly apply to the arrival of the first organism.…
As you are talking about evolution here,
=================================
I am talking about what is the truth here.
===================================
to be pedantic, it shouldn’t be "all organisms" but "all organisms except the very first individual one to exist" -but that, of course, is just being stupid and idiotically pedantic to insist that it should be said like that and only in part because that is what was obviously was meant by "all organisms" in this context.
=====================================
"Stupid .... Idiotic .... Pedantic, .... Numbskulled..... Silly ...." (shrug).
I realize that you intend to evade the problem.
=================================
It is like me saying “absolutely nobody knows what I am thinking right now” and you saying “does “absolutely nobody” include yourself?”
========================================
No it is not.
It is like saying what the author said. And then with a wink and a smile say "Just trust us" when we ask if his words apply to all organisms include #1.
Afterall the title of the book was LIFE Evolution Explained.
Since you can't address the problem I will search through the book again and see if the author does. That's fair.
============================
and then making a big deal out of it as if it means everybody must know what I think -but OBVIOUSLY, in this context “absolutely nobody” does NOT include myself -this is just word play and the same word play you are using here.
-so the answer to your question is “yes“.
==================================
The answers to my question as far as YOU are concerned is "Just trust Evolution".
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…you have done nothing of the sort,..…
you have done nothing of the sort, its nothing but pure conjecture and evolutionary postulation, were not talking about bacteria, we are talking of the human irreducibly complex cell, you have as yet failed to show one scrap of evidence which shows that life as we know it cannot exist without this intricate team work, you persist in your delusion!
ostulation of the evolutionary hypothesis, which has at its very basis, nothing but a premise?
Can you point out where I got my facts/logic wrong in my last post? -answer -no.
For example, I pointed out that even modern bacteria cells have NO cell nucleus:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/bacterium/
Thus how the cell nucleus came to existence is irrelevant to how the first life came into existence -
-do you deny these very basic scientific fact?
-Please point out where you think I am in error here.
….were not talking about bacteria, we are talking of the human irreducibly complex cell, ….
So now you have completely changed the subject from how the first life came into existence to how modern life and we evolved?
By the way, “irreducible complexity” has long been exposed as pseudoscience because it has been long exposed to be based purely on scientific ignorance and flawed logic and it has thus been dismissed by the scientific community. Thus there is no such thing as an “irreducibly complex” cell -just a “complex” cell.
I have pointed out the facts that clearly debunks the arguments you support but I have yet to see you come up with any counter-arguments to address any of the specific points I made in my last post.
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by jaywillThis "fossils hoped for" and "links unseen".
[b]==================================
….Starting when? ….
-about 4.45 billion years ago:
http://www.tellmehowto.net/answer/when_did_life_start_on_earth_118
=================================== [/b]
Starting 4.45 billion years ago after a gap between the existence of the first living organism and its subject to the first instance ...[text shortened]... question as far as YOU are concerned is "Just trust Evolution".[/b]
Like a parody of Hebrews 11:1 in the KJV
"Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for and the evidence of links unseen."
LOL, funniest thing ive heard for ages - thanks jaywill!
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonyour facts are not facts, but rather baseless assertions riddled with nothing but evolutionary postulating masquerading as science!
[b]…you have done nothing of the sort,..…
Can you point out where I got my facts/logic wrong in my last post? -answer -no.
For example, I pointed out that even modern bacteria cells have NO cell nucleus:
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/bacterium/
Thus how the cell nucleus came to existence is irrelevant to how the first ...[text shortened]... come up with any counter-arguments to address any of the specific points I made in my last post.[/b]
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo, for example, you deny the scientific FACT that modern bacteria cells have NO cell nucleus?
your facts are not facts, but rather baseless assertions riddled with nothing but evolutionary postulating masquerading as science!
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/bacterium/
Yes or no?
Is this scientifically OBSERVABLE FACT “evolutionary postulating masquerading as science”?
24 Jan 09
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltoni deny nothing! these are observable facts, infact sonhouse had an interesting post recently with regard to RNA and its ability to self replicate, an apparent first, however the same the teamwork between RNA and DNA is also an observable fact, or do you deny that this teamwork exists and that if any of of the components necessarily failed then the function of the human cell would be impossible, thus making it irreducibly complex. for is that not what you asked for, a specific entity of which the professor perhaps based his observations?
So, for example, you deny the scientific FACT that modern bacteria cells have NO cell nucleus?
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/bacterium/
Yes or no?
Is this scientifically OBSERVABLE FACT “evolutionary postulating masquerading as science”?
24 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…however the same the teamwork between RNA and DNA is also an observable fact, or do you deny that this teamwork exists.…
i deny nothing! these are observable facts, infact sonhouse had an interesting post recently with regard to RNA and its ability to self replicate, an apparent first, however the same the teamwork between RNA and DNA is also an observable fact, or do you deny that this teamwork exists and that if any of of the components necessarily failed then the fu ...[text shortened]... not what you asked for, a specific entity of which the professor perhaps based his observations?
No. In modern life there is an essential interaction between DNA and RNA -that doesn’t mean it started that way with the first life.
….and that if any of the components necessarily failed then the function of the human cell would be impossible,….
Correct.
….thus making it irreducibly complex....…
Wrong.
You are logically confusing the issue of the fact that each component is essential with the issue of the most probable missing links that lead modern life to have that set of essential components.
I will demonstrate this with just one example:
DNA in modern life cannot function without RNA and visa versa (indirectly so and with the exception of RNA viruses -but lets not get too pedantic here and just say that they depend on one another)
-so, this begs the question of which came first?
Well, a reasonable hypothesis would be RNA came first (it could have been DNA but I think this is less probable).
But then you may point out the fact that, in modern life, RNA cannot function without DNA
-so how could an organism have RNA but no DNA and yet survive?
-But this question is logically confusing the issue of the fact that the DNA component is essential in modern life with the issue of the most probable missing links that lead modern life to have BOTH RNA and DNA components: - the very FIRST living thing to exist may have had RNA but no DNA and survived because, UNLIKE IN MODERN LIFE, its chemistry was different from that of modern life and simpler such that its RNA did NOT depend on DNA and it had no DNA!
Then, later, one life form evolved to have DNA in addition to this RNA -and initially it didn’t immediately depend totally on DNA but merely was given a survival advantage -that organism can be called the “RNA-organism DNA-organism missing link“.
But then evolution made it continue to evolve an ever more complex relationship between DNA and RNA until it was no longer able to survive with one without the other hence in modern life one cannot function without the other.
Exactly the same kind of logical flaw can be shown to be within ALL arguments that are supposed to support the notion that a cell/life form is “irreducibly complex” so ALL such arguments are logically flawed thus logic dictates that there is no such thing as “irreducibly complex” in this context.
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Andrew,
Before I mentioned the Algorithm of Evolution. You being a programmer must understand that.
Now you must know what a loop is and you should know what a nested loop is. For instance a DO WHILE ------- END which itself contains a DO WHILE ------ END;
DO WHILE ( '1'😉;
statement
statement
DO WHILE(some condition);
statements
...
...
END;
statement
statement
statement
END;
I am sure you get the picture.
Now, isn't something like the Evolution of the devloopment of a tadpole into a frog WITHIN the development of a frog like a nested loop in programming?
How could you expect to believe that Natural Selection could be nested within itself to cause a these two developments the frog and the tadepole TO frog?
How could the invironment hold stable long enough to allow Natural Selection to accomplish this kind of development?
The same would go for a catapiller or gypsy moth or any other metamophasized organism.
Would not the environment also have to alter within itself in some nested manner?
24 Jan 09
4 edits
Originally posted by jaywill…How could you expect to believe that Natural Selection could be nested within itself.…[/b]
Andrew,
Before I mentioned the Algorithm of Evolution. You being a programmer must understand that.
Now you must know what a loop is and you should know what a nested loop is. For instance a DO WHILE ------- END which itself contains a DO WHILE ------ END;
DO WHILE ( '1'😉;
statement
statement
[b]
DO WHILE(some anism.
Would not the environment also have to alter within itself in some nested manner?
Your analogy has lost me.
….How could the environment hold stable long enough to allow Natural Selection to accomplish this kind of development? ….
I have already answered that in various parts of previous posts and clearly debunked this argument -I have adapted what I said before here below:
“…it is not that it is a requirement that the environment must stay approximately as it is for things to evolve!
….
life will evolve strategies to cope with the changes -just as much of life has: two examples:
1, deciduous trees loose their leaves to adapt to the coming winter season of cold.
2, many bacteria turn into drought-resistant heat-resistant cold-resistant dormant spores when exposed to increasing adverse conditions.
Thus they just adapt to the rapid changes and thus continue to survive thus continue to evolve.
Life is constantly exposed to rapid unpredictable changes in the environment in the modern day -and yet it continuous to survive -so why would it been able to survive in the past despite rapid unpredictable changes in the environment in the past? -and, if it continually survived in the past then why wouldn’t it been able to continually evolve in the past?
There is plenty of recent evolution in the modern day (antibiotic resistant bacteria etc) and there are rapid unpredictable changes in the environment in the modern day thus CLEARLY PROVING that evolution can occur in an environment with rapid unpredictable changes.
…..”
Also, even if that was not the case:
“The ocean floor of deep oceans is the best example of an environment that changes very little in millions of years -water is ALWAYS present and the temperature ALWAYS stays between -1C and -4C in temperature -do you deny this geological fact?
-life could have well started there and then evolved there although it could have also started in a pool of water on land as permanent stability of the environment is not a requirement for evolution.
“
….Would not the environment also have to alter within itself in some nested manner?..…
Again -you have lost me.
24 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltona reasonable hypothesis, a reasonable hypothesis? gulp Andrew, were not interested in what you deem to be reasonable nor hypothetical, although they are in their own way, interesting and informative as usual and i really thank you for that, however, what we are seeking is how a system as beautiful in its conception and design, and yes i will use the word designed, for i have never come across a structure yet in my life that functions as well as the human cell without having been the product of intelligence and deliberate design, could function without one of its component parts. you have failed time and again to either address this or provide a reasonable explanation as to why it would function as it does in its capacity without this teamwork between RNA and DNA and proteins.
…however the same the teamwork between RNA and DNA is also an observable fact, or do you deny that this teamwork exists.…[/b]
No. In modern life there is an essential interaction between DNA and RNA -that doesn’t mean it started that way with the first life.
….and that if any of the components necessarily failed then the function of the flawed thus logic dictates that there is no such thing as “irreducibly complex” in this context.
you admit that it would not function if one of its parts were malfunctionional or missing, its not a question of which came first, for this is pure conjecture, for what we observe is a direct correlation between the two, the basis of which, without this teamwork, life could not exist! and now you are going beyond the realms of belief my learned friend and postulating with reference to some molecular missing link? I am not saying that your theory is not plausible, but then neither is mount Rushmore having been sculpted by the action of wind and storm, its just unlikely, and I tell you truly it takes a greater jump of faith to believe it than it does to give credence to an intelligent creator, as the illustrious Behe states, why should we limit ourselves to unintelligent causes?, therefore i admonish you, free yourself, see the beauty, marvel at the design, be in awe of the kaleidoscopic majesty of life, for it is nothing short of a wonder to behold.
24 Jan 09
5 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton============================
…How could you expect to believe that Natural Selection could be nested within itself.…
Your analogy has lost me.
….How could the environment hold stable long enough to allow Natural Selection to accomplish this kind of development? ….
I have already answered that in various parts of previous posts and clearly debunked this argum ...[text shortened]... nment also have to alter within itself in some nested manner?..…[/b]
Again -you have lost me.[/b]
Your analogy has lost me.
=============================
Can you see that for a tadpole to develop into a frog reflects a kind of adaption within an adaption ?
If you can see some proto frog evolving into a frog then you have to account for another evolution within that one. That would be the evolving of the tadpole into the frog.
Mind you we are not simply talking about a growing frog getting larger and larger. But we are talking about a fish like amphibian (the tadpole) gradually transforming into a hoping amphibian.
At the present time, for me, this calls for minor adaption within a major adaption.
Natural Selection as I see it would have to act in a nested manner. That is like a logic loop within another outer logical loop.
If the frog simply gave birth to tinny little growing frogs, then I would not see as much of a problem. But the frog gives birth to something which looks and acts quite different.
And that different creature (the tadpole) grows into a frog.
Now that is a clever trick for your Natural Selection of adaption to adverse environment algorithm.
The whole problem of why Evolution caused that a life has to GROW in the first place is a mind boggler.
Would you please push the age of the biosphere back a few trillion millenia? Maybe that will help.
24 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew Hamiltonthe ocean is nothing short of a marvel of design and intelligence, for not only does it host some of the most beautiful creatures it has its own filtration system. i raised this point with Mexico, but he must have been busy or unaware, although i doubt it as he is a geologist, anyhow, this amazing system works like this.
…How could you expect to believe that Natural Selection could be nested within itself.…
Your analogy has lost me.
….How could the environment hold stable long enough to allow Natural Selection to accomplish this kind of development? ….
I have already answered that in various parts of previous posts and clearly debunked this argum ...[text shortened]... nment also have to alter within itself in some nested manner?..…[/b]
Again -you have lost me.[/b]
what happens to pollutants that are in suspension in the air? they are too small to combine with other substances and so remain in suspension. however, when the ocean throws up ocean spray, the salt in the water combines with these pollutants, binds with them and makes them heavy enough to fall into the ocean. after a long time they eventually reach the ocean floor where they are absorbed into huge crevices in the ocean floor which act like a huge aquarium filter. the pollutants combined with heavier substances get vulcanized and combine with molten lava and the water that is separated with them gets filtered out in huge ocean vents, clean and free from the airborne pollutants which had originally combined with the salt from the ocean spray. the process takes a long time, but it is present and works, a huge oceanic filtration system, evidence of intelligence and design and a testimony to the wisdom of the creator himself!
25 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie…a reasonable hypothesis? gulp Andrew, were not interested in what you deem to be reasonable nor hypothetical.…
a reasonable hypothesis, a reasonable hypothesis? gulp Andrew, were not interested in what you deem to be reasonable nor hypothetical, although they are in their own way, interesting and informative as usual and i really thank you for that, however, what we are seeking is how a system as beautiful in its conception and design, and yes i will use th ...[text shortened]... , be in awe of the kaleidoscopic majesty of life, for it is nothing short of a wonder to behold.
You have totally missed my point here -I am not saying that IS the way it happened and, I think in this case, I cannot even be absolutely sure that that is the way it ‘probably’ happened because there may be other alternative hypothesis/factors that have never entered my mind or are totally unknown to me.
BUT, and this IS the critical point here, the fact that I just gave JUST ONE reasonable hypothesis (and ONLY one is sufficient here) that shows how the CURRENT complexity of the chemistry of living cells could have come about without the “chicken and egg” problem means that that the mere existence of that reasonable hypothesis totally rubbishes and DISPROVES the idea that it is, so called, “irreducibly complex” because, to make sense to call it “irreducibly complex”, it must contain within it components that couldn’t credibly came there one at a time (the “chicken and egg” problem) under ANY reasonable hypothesis!
-but I have just given a reasonable hypothesis that DOES show how they could have credibly came there one at a time!
-whether my hypothesis is the correct hypothesis or if the correct hypothesis of how they could have credibly came there one at a time is totally different from mine is totally irrelevant to the issue for the reason just explained.
….could function without one of its component parts. you have failed time and again to either address this or provide a reasonable explanation as to why it would function as it does in its capacity without this teamwork between RNA and DNA and proteins.
,….
I just HAVE explained it with a reasonable hypothesis -read my post again.
….you admit that it would not function if one of its parts were malfunctionional or missing,....…
…its not a question of which came first,.…
-yes it is!
….for this is pure conjecture..…
No -it is apply LOGIC to the probabilities -it is less probable that BOTH came at exactly the same time than just ONE at a time. Therefore, it is more probable that “one came first”. -do you deny this logic?
…for what we observe is a direct correlation between the two..…
Yes -but your conclusion does NOT logically follow from this premise and as clearly demonstrated by the fact that I have just given a reasonable hypothesis of how one could have came before the other and STILL resulted in one being totally dependent on the other in its MODERN form (not to be confused with its ORIGINAL form) but NOT one being dependent on the other in its ORIGINAL form.
25 Jan 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow would it logically follow from:
the ocean is nothing short of a marvel of design and intelligence, for not only does it host some of the most beautiful creatures it has its own filtration system. i raised this point with Mexico, but he must have been busy or unaware, although i doubt it as he is a geologist, anyhow, this amazing system works like this.
what happens to pollutant ...[text shortened]... ystem, evidence of intelligence and design and a testimony to the wisdom of the creator himself!
1, there is a beneficial aspect X to the natural environment.
That:
2, a "god" must have put aspect X there.
?
-And, also, are there not also “harmful” aspects to the natural environment?
25 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill…Can you see that for a tadpole to develop into a frog reflects a kind of adaptation WITHIN an adaptation ?
[b]============================
Your analogy has lost me.
=============================
Can you see that for a tadpole to develop into a frog reflects a kind of adaption within an adaption ?
If you can see some proto frog evolving into a frog then you have to account for another evolution within that one. That would be the evolvin ...[text shortened]... uld you please push the age of the biosphere back a few trillion millenia? Maybe that will help.[/b]
.… (my emphasis)
-you have lost me again -what do you mean by “adaptation WITHIN an adaptation?
-I mean, what is it with the business of “WITHIN”? -I don’t understand; -wouldn’t the words “in addition to” be more appropriate words than “WITHIN”? -if not, why not?
….Natural Selection as I see it would have to act in a NESTED manner. That is like a logic loop WITHIN another outer logical loop.
,….(my emphasis)
You have totally lost me -elaborate on what you mean by “NESTED” in this particular context.
I find the whole of you post unintelligible because I don’t know what you mean by such statements.
….And that different creature (the tadpole) grows into a frog. ..…
A primitive tadpole-like animal would have evolved first that did NOT turn into a frog but later the frog part of the life cycle would have evolved -I have absolutely no idea if that has anything to do with what you are saying here and I apologise in advance if it doesn't but I hope it helps 🙂