Darwin re-visited

[Galapagos]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

2) the anti-theist bent of this site (and this thread) is remarkably derogatory. It clouds your ability to engage in discussion about relevant data.

Recall this post:

Also, I didn't directly link to this in my previous posts, but to anyone who hasn't seen it here is a link to the relevant court rulings on Intelligent Design from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Also, recently Ken Miller guest blogged over at The Loom further debunking Intelligent Design. Probably of interest to anyone following this thread:

Smoke and Mirrors, Whales and Lampreys: A Guest Post by Ken Miller | The Loom | Discover Magazine

Ken Miller’s Guest Post, Part Two | The Loom | Discover Magazine

Ken Miller’s Final Guest Post: Looking Forward | The Loom | Discover Magazine

There is nothing "anti-theist" about debunking the junk science of ID:

Kenneth R. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kenneth R. Miller (born 1948) is a biology professor at Brown University. Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design movement. He has written two books on the subject. The first, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution, argues that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. In Only a Theory, his second on the subject, explores ID and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District as well as its implications in science across America.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

You originally said you thought it was a rare event.

It is certainly not rare in microbes. It is rare in species higher than prokaryotes. I don't think it ever happens in eukaryotes. Anyone have any data on this?

Bio

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

There is nothing "anti-theist" about debunking the junk science of ID:

Maybe. But there is something distinctly anti-theist about debunking ID when no one brought it up. No one except you.

Incidentally, creationist proponents are no more homogeneous that evolutionary biologists. Any treatise that starts with "ID proponents think..." or "creationists think..." is a little like saying "scientists think...". It is a non statement.

Bio

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Not true: It addresses the apparent incongruity of the 3 billion years from life to mammal, when the statistical probability is in the range of 1 in 10^3000 Unanswerable? How? They are just different questions. That is how science works.

That is the reductio ad absurdum tactic, yet again. You expect the reader to accept that because the odds against your cherry-picked point are so high, it is an absurd conclusion and this would mean the premise is false. Please do tell, what are the odds of something happening that has never happened before?

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

There is nothing "anti-theist" about debunking the junk science of ID:

I started this in post 463 of this thread. Re-read the post. The data in that post stands. I don't think anything in that post is contested.

Please stop the unrelated ID attacks, and stick to the data.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Galapagos

You haven't quoted any scientists or posted any actual science to support your position.

Post # 463 was my first material post here.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Your fixation of assuming a preloaded code and then saying no intelligence is required to preload that data is disingenuous and you know it.

Let me ask a different hypothetical. Do me a favor and follow with me:

1) If we could drop a handful of chemicals into a plain glass of water and a frog hopped out in 20 minutes, we would say that is pretty surprising, but if it is reproducible, we would just say, well, it happens.

2) If sometimes it was a frog, other times it was a bird, we would say, hey this is weird, and we would try to identify what conditions caused "bird" and what conditions caused "frog"

3) If it only happened every 100th time, we would look for the unique initial conditions that caused anything,

Now, we have an example of quadrillions of little experiments (the complex bio precursors) and we popped out exactly one complex tree.

Isn't one possibility really more like #1??????? It really could have happened more than once, but since the frogs are all identical, we can't tell??

That is 1) life naturally occurs, 2) it naturally occurs in exactly the way it has, and 3) if the earth's initial state happened again, it would happen again is pretty much the same way?

If that were the case a) it is fair to call it "front loading", and b) How is this any more theistic than believing in gravity?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

Let me ask a different hypothetical. Do me a favor and follow with me:

1) If we could drop a handful of chemicals into a plain glass of water and a frog hopped out in 20 minutes, we would say that is pretty surprising, but if it is reproducible, we would just say, well, it happens.

You would have to be brain dead to be satisfied with "well, it happens" I know of no one whould just accept such a thing.

2) If sometimes it was a frog, other times it was a bird, we would say, hey this is weird, and we would try to identify what conditions caused "bird" and what conditions caused "frog"

Yeah I think you could say "we" would be interested in what caused the difference.

3) If it only happened every 100th time, we would look for the unique initial conditions that caused anything,

Yes I think we would look at everything associated with what happened.

Now, we have an example of quadrillions of little experiments (the complex bio precursors) and we popped out exactly one complex tree.

I have answered this before and I will not do it again.

Isn't one possibility really more like #1??????? It really could have happened more than once, but since the frogs are all identical, we can't tell??

What you are suggesting is clap trap, bull shit, and dishonest, life didn't just pop into existence and the complexity of life evolved over a huge period of time, it didn't just pop into existence. You should stop suggesting it did, no matter how many times you it will not be that way.

That is 1) life naturally occurs, 2) it naturally occurs in exactly the way it has, and 3) if the earth's initial state happened again, it would happen again is pretty much the same way?

This a gross over simplification and no it wouldn't necessarily happen the same way, there are many possibilities and we are just one of them. If it hadn't happened that way we wouldn't be here to question it.

If that were the case a) it is fair to call it "front loading", and b) How is this any more theistic than believing in gravity?

It's not the case, we know it's not and front loading is indicative of a guiding intelligence of which there is no need for or indication of. Your idea of front loading is not a viable theory, it reeks of creationism and has no evidence of it's factuality. You just repeating it over and over does not make it any more of a possibility.


I thouhgt you were going to take your ball and go home,

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Turtle

That is the reductio ad absurdum tactic, yet again.... Please do tell, what are the odds of something happening that has never happened before?

You don't know it never happened before, any more than I do.

Probability could be near 100% with similar starting conditions.

[HydrogenBond]

Front loading is analogous to laws of the nature following certain paths in a predictable way. For example, even before a star forms and if we start with only hydrogen, the elements that appear are not just random. We don't get new atoms each time. There is a sequence that is predictable.

Life is a little harder to extrapolate this way, but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We don't have a complete model of abiogenesis. We lack the logic needed to predict if life will follow a given sequence. The analogy is, say we knew nothing about nuclear fusion. If that was the case, we could assume anything is randomly possible since there are no guiding principles other than random. Without this known logic every star can make up a new periodic table especially since we can't take direct samples. Whatever happens is by chance since can't do it in a logical way.

To break out of that circular logic loop, we need something that logical and measurable, like an energy balance, to give things a sense of predictable logic. The fusion in stars follows an energy balance to give us a sense of sequence. It eliminates a wide range of random theories that would be possible without this logic.

Let me give a real cellular example of how an energy balance is totally consistent with observation. As was discussed, if a cell is duplicating the DNA, mistakes in base pairing are implicit of slightly higher energy base pairing, because the hydrogen bonding is not at minimum energy. The proof reading enzymes are attracted to these zones to correct mistakes. They can tell which are the mistakes because these are the positions with higher energy. They have an energy flag.

This action of those enzymes suggests the potential on the mistakes can be lowered when the proof reading enzymes attaches, but there is still some potential. A further lowering of potential occurs when the mistake is corrected. It takes two steps to the lower the potential. With the potential in the local DNA gone, the proof reading enzymes are now the source of a new potential. To lower that potential they need to leave that spot and will gravitate to other mistakes areas of higher potential. The goal of the entire process is to lower the potential within the DNA implicit of optimized base pairing.

If we look in the terms of evolution, modern proof reading enzymes have evolved with the goal of minimizing the energy of the DNA. If they had to evolve again, from scratch, they would have the same predictable goal.