Life's Irreducible Structure (DEBATE THREAD)

CMI ^ | Alex Williams

[GodGunsGuts]

Gotcha. BTW, your last reply re: historical inference could not have been more timely. Thanks again.

[LeGrande]

Cause and Effect isn't just a philosophical proposition as everything in existence is theorized to be the effect or results of energy and matter arising from....no cause whatsoever.

(E=MC²) is not cause and effect. E and M are the same.

And if you care to point the famous double slit experiment then it must be noted that we get answers according to how we ask them, even as physicist John Wheeler commented,

Yes, force is mass, waves are particles, no cause and effect needed. The law of cause and effect is a philosophical argument, not a scientific law.

If “ In science there are no proofs only falsifications....”, then the finding of science should not be used as proof of anything, only as an opinion from a biased position.

That is probably accurate enough : ) Science has no proof at all. It simply has theories that have not been falsified. Very, very good theories I might add : )

[tacticalogic]

Then we have a theory that asserts that:

(A)Life cannot arise from natural processes, it must be designed, and

(B)No matter who the designer was, there can be no design that permits the organisme to evolve.

Is that correct?

[GodGunsGuts]

Here’s another paper he wrote that goes into much more detail about how DNA complexity completely demolishes neo-Darwinism. It’s on topic, and trust me, it’s a mind-popping paper. All the best—GGG

http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_3/j21_3_111-117.pdf

[CottShop]

[[The “evidence” from the article is that existence proves a creator, it doesn’t.]]

Legrande- NO it doesn’t- it establishes an intelligent causation for hte reasons mentioend i nthe article- it ALSO estabishes and confirms several other extremely important ‘laws’

[[First you must support and provide evidence, with no contradictions before you can have a “law.”]]

There are no contradictions to what is being established- and he does provide evidence and confims observations scientifically. The article is NOT about establishing who the intelligence is- the author has an OPINION about who it is, however- keep hte discussion relevent to the central assertions that GGG posted please-

[[Maybe you should read the article. ]]

I’ve read the article several times thank you- the central issues are quite interesting, but you apaprently want ot divert fro mthem by pointing out htat hte author has an opinion in ADDITION TO the important central theme beign discussed both in hte article, and hopefully here.

[Fichori]

Welcome ;-)

I’m just around 25% through part two.

All very interesting.

[CottShop]

[[Are you suggesting that if a chemist demonstrates a reaction in the laboratory, that this implies the reaction cannot occur outside the laboratory?]]

Nope- We’re just pointing out how intelligently and carefully controlled those experiments are, and showing that in natural conditions, these conditions do not exist, and that in natural conditions, it would be essentially impossible for such results to happen and survive for a great many reasons- each reason adding it’s own essential impossibilities to the next- until we posit that it is unreasonable to suggest that nature is capable of such a finely tuned intellgient creation and assembly- however, the discussion is about the article, and not whether lab conditions coudl reasonably be duplicated in nature- the article is discussing hte chemical purity and assembly and cosntructions and inter-reliancy of all the subsystems which support hte megasystem, and whether nature is capable of these incredible intracacies and self-assemblies in their pure form and IC state, and with hte ifnromation needed already present and somehow accoutned for and fully functional or not-

[LeGrande]

Are you saying that scientists should stop looking for cause and effect relationships? This would completely destroy the scientific method.

"Cause and effect" is not the basis of the scientific method. Determining what 'is' is the basis. Science uses interactions to help determine what reality really is, interaction is simply a tool.

[js1138]

We’re just pointing out how intelligently and carefully controlled those experiments are...

So things that happen carefully controlled experiments can't happen outside this experiments?

I'm having difficulty following your logic.

Miller's experiment could be replicated by a 12 year-old. The reason for the careful controls is not that careful controls are necessary for the reactions to take place, but that controls are necessary to rule out contamination as the source of the products.

[LeGrande]

The fact that something exists does not necessarily imply a creator. Your logic is based on a false assumption.

Yes it does! it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a creator is needed

Particle - antiparticle creation from nothing spontaneously happens all the time. No creator is necessary. The premise that you support is wrong.

If nature is incapable, and could not possibly have caused the evidence we are examining, then there is only one other possible cause- an intelligent causation- it’s either caused naturally, or intelligently- there is no other reasonable explanation

Luckily for our discussion, nature is perfectly capable of existing. The theory that has been falsified is the theory that an intelligent cause is needed. No cause is needed at all.

[Finny]

Look, GGG, the silence is deafening because you're DEAF. So it's a waste of time to expect to be heard by deaf people like you, and a lot of us know it.

Just the same, this once, I'll give it another go.

I'm comfortable with my Christianity and with where paleontology has gone in its discoveries; if as time goes by and more data comes in, paleontologists discover things that make them adjust or revise, just as ALL fields of science DO because it's the nature of science, that's fine with me. I'm curious about the nature of the world around me, and science satisfies that curiosity. No matter what it tells me, I know that God is behind it all, and that Jesus is my savior no matter what. I take joy in reading paleontology books that offer explanations of why some are black and others white, some are tall and lanky and others squat and short; I have found so much in them to rejoice at the sheer genius and beauty and wisdom and miracle of God and Jesus Christ, especially in the evolutionary context where it becomes even more poignant with regard to where we came from and how we got here as homo sapiens, and how we truly can adapt as a species to survive anywhere, anytime.

The difference is that YOU are not curious about the world around you. Far from being comfortable with where facts and reason lead you with regard to worldly things like our material beings (as opposed to our spiritual beings), you are so uncomfortable and so emotionally vested in the bible instead of the life that God put you here to live, that you aggressively seek factoids and rationale and angles and spin to discredit paleontological discoveries and theories for no other reason than to gratify a religious agenda. It isn't science or curiosity that leads you there. You are motivated by desire for a kind of revenge and by doubt -- you have allowed science to sew seeds of doubt with regard to our Divine nature.

You can do that, fine -- but you're only fooling yourself. You are not driven by curiosity or quest for truth; I am, and so are many of we Christians who think evolution IS intelligent design. You are driven by ego and pride as vested in your religious identity and weak confidence in the ways of God.

In the natural world, God's reality is that it's dog-eat-dog with regard to changing environments, and lifeforms either adapt or perish. It is very clear from the fossil record that this is true. "Adapt or perish" is the bottom line of the "Darwinism" which you find so offensive.

Guess what, pal? Spiritually, God's reality is that our world is equally dog-eat dog, and Judeo-Christianity is clearly the proved method by which we can always,, for eternity, adapt to survive. Civilizations that don't adapt to God's reality, those that defy or ignore (as the Western world is doing today, to its detriment) the word of God and engage in all that Judeo-Christianity stands against -- brutality, cruelty, murder, homosexuality, greed, lust, slavery, bondage, adult-child sex, human sacrifice, etc. -- they all perish. EVERY ONE.

You are deaf ... and possibly blind as well. So please, attribute the the "deafening" silence you observe to the proper cause.

[CottShop]

Tactic- I’ll have to look at that later- I may be comign down with Bronchitis, and feelign pretty bad- hard to concentrate- I’ll look at your suggested poitns if I can and see if htey are reasoanble or not- At first glance it seems though that you are trying to change the rules by tryign to change what the author is actually putting forth- As you well know, there is microevolution’, and at first glance it seems you want to try to render hte authors whole precepts invalid by then pointing out that we know microevolution happens-

But again- I’m not feelign well, and could be reading yor points wrong, but it seems that htis is hwere you are tryign to lead?

The authors statements are:

(A) All aspects of life (not just bacterial flagellums and blood clotting cascades) lie beyond the reach of naturalistic explanations, and (B) only intelligent design meets the criterion of an acceptable historical inference according to the Law of Cause and Effect.

Let’s then discuss whether naturalism can bring forth IC, and whether or not ID meets the criterion of an acceptable (and I would add- much more realistically probable) historical inferrence- according to hte law of cause and effect.

I’ll be tryign to read through the third link GGG posted- but again, not feelign well, and it’ll takem e soem time, but hopefulyl it will show more evidence which can be included to support hte authors two points

[CottShop]

[[So things that happen carefully controlled experiments can’t happen outside this experiments?

I’m having difficulty following your logic.]]

Did I say it can’t happen? No- I’m saying it is essentially impossible- and we’re talking a VERY serious impossibility here, and pointing out that it is illogical in light of htis to bleeive it did happen

[[Miller’s experiment could be replicated by a 12 year-old.]]

Rwally? Because Miller had to isolate the created acids fro mthe power that sparked them, and had to then isolate the acids fro meach other in carefully controlled conditions- not many 12 years old have hte knowhow to do this

[[The reason for the careful controls is not that careful controls are necessary for the reactions to take place,]]

Yes they were- chemicals all had to be arranged ‘just so’, as well as just hte right ingredients for hte ‘soup’ had to be constructed

[[but that controls are necessary to rule out contamination as the source of the products.]]

Thati s not entirely true- controls were needed to construct acids from chemicals- this wans’t just some random zapping goign on- every step of hte experiement was intelligently designed and controlled- and NOT just to prevent contamination either.

[js1138]

I see two distinct threads in the Intelligent design movement.

One thread argues that the physical structure of the universe makes life impossible except when a deity or demiurge steps in to assemble the pieces.

The second thread, the “Privileged Planet” thread, argues that the physical constants of the universe are designed and created to make life possible.

Michael Denton, for example, went from argument one to argument two in his books. His first best seller, “Evolution: a Theory In Crisis,” argued that evolution is impossible.

His second book, “Nature’s Destiny,” argued the opposite: that the design of the physical constants made life and evolution inevitable.

It is rather common in these debates to see both positions argued by the same person, without irony.

[tacticalogic]

Tactic- I’ll have to look at that later- I may be comign down with Bronchitis, and feelign pretty bad- hard to concentrate- I’ll look at your suggested poitns if I can and see if htey are reasoanble or not- At first glance it seems though that you are trying to change the rules by tryign to change what the author is actually putting forth- As you well know, there is microevolution’, and at first glance it seems you want to try to render hte authors whole precepts invalid by then pointing out that we know microevolution happens-

Okay. Just for reference, point A seems to be stated explicitly. Point B seems less explicit, but seems to be the only reasonable conclusion that is consistent with all the arguments presented with regard to the impossibility of evolution.

[CottShop]

[[Particle - antiparticle creation from nothing spontaneously happens all the time.]]

Legrande- Apaprently you are not goign to discuss the article’s central precepts, and instead goign to keep tryign to make irrelevent arguemnts in hopes of sidetracking- and if you ocntinue, I’ll simply ignore your arguments-

We are NOT talking abotu simply particles here- We
re taling abotu intelligently constructed chemicals that result in life- there is a HUGE difference i nwhat you wrote, and wht I wrote

[[The theory that has been falsified is the theory that an intelligent cause is needed. ]]

Again- if you are simply goign to make broad claims without providign any evidence to back your claims up, then I’ll simpyl ignore you are not being interested i nscience or facts- the hteory has NOT been falisified- Not even close- simply stating so is quite silly-

[CottShop]

Hey Finny-0 instead of launching into an attack on GGG with nothign but faslse ad hominem accusations- how abotu addressign hte article?

[js1138]

and we’re talking a VERY serious impossibility here

I would say that unless you know the specific steps by which life arose from non-life -- and even the Bible says it did -- you cannot calculate the probabilities.

You can, of course, calculate the probability of cells assembling in one step via quantum leap, but no one asserts this happened (except, I suppose, creationists).

But there is no theory, and no hypothesis which specifies the steps, so I am at a loss as to how you calculate the odds.

[Fichori]

“Miller's experiment could be replicated by a 12 year-old. The reason for the careful controls is not that careful controls are necessary for the reactions to take place, but that controls are necessary to rule out contamination as the source of the products.”

From part 1 of the article:

Many carbon-based molecules have a property called ‘chirality’— they can exist in two forms that are mirror images of each other (like our left and right hands) called ‘enantiomers’. Living organisms generally use only one of these enantiomers (e.g. left-handed amino acids and right-handed sugars). In contrast, naturalistic experiments that produce amino acids and sugars always produce an approximately 50:50 mixture (called a ‘racemic’ mixture) of the left- and right-handed forms. The horrors of the thalidomide drug disaster resulted from this problem of chirality. The homochiral form of one kind had therapeutic benefits for pregnant women, but the other form caused shocking fetal abnormalities.

From part 2:

The ground level of the autopoietic hierarchy is perfectly pure components, such as only left-handed amino acids (in contrast to the dirty chemistry of the natural environment). De Duve has no naturalistic explanation for this transition because the mass-action laws of environmental chemistry drive it towards mixtures rather than purity.

The Miller experiment creates a racemic soup of left- and right-handed enantiomers that would be toxic to life.

[GodGunsGuts]

Did you bother to check the debate topic before hitting the reply button? This debate thread was previously agreed upon by various creationists, IDers, and evolutionists. You are off topic, you obviously didn’t read the papers, and your comments are rude. Your reply will therefore be ignored.

All the best—GGG