Posted on 01/27/2009 6:59:07 AM PST by betty boop
Edited on 01/27/2009 7:16:52 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
WTH? Over.
I could swear that the central theme of the thread is abiogenesis and not ongoing evolution.
But at any rate, given the molecular evidence of ERVs and such, if it is demonstrated that speciation is possible, than the other lines of evidence for common descent become overwhelming.
So it is important to discuss what is possible and to discover through research what is possible.
Consider, for example, a forensic investigation. If I find your fingerprints at a crime scene, and I have a witness saying you were there, and I find proceeds from the crime in your possession, you are all but convicted. Unless you have equally convincing evidence that you were somewhere else at the time.
When forming a theory or conjecture about what happened in the past, it is necessary that the individual pieces of the story each be possible or plausible. When you combine possibility with other lines of evidence, you have a more convincing case. Eventually, in criminal cases, you can have a case that is convincing enough to send a person to prison or even to justify execution.
Oh yes, several of these frauds have exposed themselves as liberals with their disdain for Christianity with their separation of church and state tripe.
For instance, on the complexity issue I found myself sharing some observations with Jewish Physicist Gerald Schroeder and not enthused by the "irreducibly complex" argument - mostly because it is backwards looking and therefore baits the same types of counter-arguments that evolution theory baits: absence of evidence is evidence of absence or not. Too much toggling between positions, too much heat, not enough light.
So I am drawn to the forward looking models, e.g. the AP Model, self-organizing complexity, cellular automata.
[[I usually put it this way: that order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system. Period.]]
This is the central point that I was trying to make too- The following is a perfect example of why EVERYTHING (Even the cell containers, and the chemicals and biology that go into the building blocks of the container, and hte nutrients that flow to the cell, and hte membrane etc etc etc all need higher infor controlling every aspect of it’s creation, organization, maintanance, etc to keep it as distant from entropy as possible) needs to be ordered by a system of higher info- otherwise chaos will ensue, and a compelte breakdown will occure- IF we try to ‘create’ such systems of complexity using nothign but stepwise change, the system fails because htere are no higher orders of infromaiton controlling and directing every aspect of our systems. Any change that might occure woudl be met with confusion, one part not ‘knowing’ what to do with hte new change, and this change not being able to link to all the aspects of hte system it needs to intelligently link to in order to maintain fitness for the system.
[[The eukaryotic cell, for example, is made of various biochemical components such as nucleic acids and proteins, and is organized into bounded structures such as the cell nucleus, various organelles, a cell membrane and cytoskeleton. These structures, based on an external flow of molecules and energy, produce the components which, in turn, continue to maintain the organized bounded structure that gives rise to these components.]]
[[There are always guides to the system. Even at the lowest level, space/time and physical laws are guides to the system.]]
Yup- while there are ‘bounding guidlines’ which can bring a sense of order, this order is at such a low level of complexity that it can’t possibly hope to organize every aspect of essential coordination needed for life- there HAS to be higher guides- higher info, higher metainfo conducting every move and change and result
[[(anticipating, foreknowing or being aware of the need for maintenance and repair)]]
You simply can’t get this ‘self awareness’ from building models using pure chemical bonds, nor can it be gained from an outside influence as Demski seems to be suggesting it can. This ‘self-awarenesss’ is a built in biologically ingrained design that certainly can’t be gained by natural comunication from nature like Demski thinks it can somehow be.
Good post Alamo- these are the key points being made in the article- and somethign that I’ve said before that I think is far more important than Behe’s more simplistic single incidents of IC
Then you are no doubt drawn to the most current work, which includes the work of Szostak.
[[If you’re fat and my calling you fat strikes you as an insult then so be it.]]
It is an insult- it’s crass and uncalled for and if you haven’t the manners to be civil- then Your posts will be reported from here on out- Your choice!
[[Wrong is wrong no matter how sensitive the wrong people are.]]
You have neither provided evidence ID or IC is wrong, you’ve only offered your subjective opinion o nthe matter- laced with petty childish insults about htose you dissagree with theologically- this is posted i nthe religion forum, and it was posted here for a reason- to keep the petty insults out, and to facilitate a civil discussion about the article posted, which you have completely ignored- Your insults are meant for nothign more htna derailing htreads with petty side arguments- there are different rules i nthis forum, and if you can’t step it up to abide by them, then as I mentioned, I’ll report your posts myself.
As you know, I freely disclose that the most certain knowledge I possess does not come from sensory perception or reasoning but from the revelations of God in (a) the Person of Jesus Christ, (b) the Person of the Holy Spirit, (c) Scripture and (d) Creation both physical and spiritual.
I’m going to return to the recent (so recent it hasn’t actually been published yet) paper by Dembski and Marks. In it he rather explicitly states that an evolutionary algorithm accumulates active information from the environmental response to change. This can be observed in living things via experimentation, and it can be simulated with computer algorithms.
So there are a couple of remaining questions. Dembski’s question is whether evolutionary algorithms are efficient enough to account for the speed of biological evolution. (Also Behe’s question.)
Your question appears to be how did the algorithm originate, or how did the algorithm become embodied in living things.
That is why Szostak’s work is so important, because he is investigating whether chemistry can evolve an instance of a structure that can continue evolving.
It doesn't. The article makes a point of showing that the second law applies throughout the life of the organism.
Such claims pretty much shut down discussion. Is that your goal?
I haven't seen a coherent statement of physical history to which all YECs would subscribe. I'm not talking about trivial details. I'm talking about rather large scale phenomena, such as the length of the day intended by Genesis writers, whether the individuals take on the Ark by Noah represented species or families of creatures, whether diseases were specially created or the result of devolution. In short, I see no creationist theory that explains the range of phenomena accounted for by mainstream science.
But we're not there yet.
My question goes to the rise of autonomy, semiosis, information [Shannon, successful communication] and awareness. What are the guides to the system?
But the life of single celled organisms doesn't end as a result of degeneration. Single celled organisms have never experienced death.
The objective was to improve communication on crevo threads, not stop it.
I would suggest you rephrase your question in light of Szostak's work.
Go through the video, visit his site, read his published writings, and come back with some detailed statement of where he is wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.