The Blind Atheist

[Lincoln]

"Through evolution - which can't happen without life, which can't happen without replication."

I am glad to see that you frankly admit that evolution cannot happen without life. Maybe you can help me explain that to Jack. And yes, replication is a necessry part of life but there is certainly more to it than that.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lars:

Theology is by definition without errors.

Theology is the study of superstitions. Many of those superstitions are erroneous.

We know very little about science and we discover we are wrong all the time thus it seriously needs to develop or 'evolve' as you name it.

Science seeks the truth: religion merely declares that whatever ideas the first priests thought of ARE the truth. And science is rarely "wrong" about anything. Generally, the "wrong" theories which science replaces are pre-scientific ones: like flat-Earthism, geocentrism, Biblical creationism. A new scientific theory is very rarely replaced by another one. For instance, Newtonian motion is still a valid theory at low velocities where Einsteinian relativistic effects are insignificant.

Theology doesn't aim to prove scientific truth. Scientific evidence does, but has not come very far with the evolution theory as it has not been proven. So either the evidence is hard to dig out and/or the theory is lacking.

The evidence is overwhelming, and evolution has been "proved" about as thoroughly as anything in science can ever be proved. That's why there is no scientific controversy about the fact that evolution has happened (and is still happening).

Lincoln:

You said that the bonds are weaker between the "words" as the genetic code arose somehow. Please explain how AGC,TGA,CTA,GT etc. is seperated into "words" or a specific 3 letter code using the laws of theromodynamics or chemical laws. What natural law causes the CT bond to be less in the first case (after the first AGC) than it is in the third 3 letter code (CTA).

These are features of modern DNA-based replication. According to abiogenesis theorists, DNA itself was a later development: therefore the three-letter code system in DNA would also be a later development. The formation of polynucleotides from free-floating nucleotides isn't dependent on the existence of this code structure.

"As I said earlier, naturalistic abiogeneis is the theory that the first self-replicator was simple enough to form by random chance alone."

That theory however is absurd and is based upon the false notion that information and the specific instructions, vehicle for translation, order of asembly of the various machinery,
etc. arises spontaneously according to natural laws.

Why is it "absurd"? Why is it a "false notion"? Calculations have shown that a huge variety of organic molecules would form in a relatively short period of time under early-Earth conditions. There are no "natural laws" which would stop this happening.

"For modern organisms..."

No comment is necessary because that is irrelevant to abiogenesis and the origin of information and the construction of a complex machine which are the essential ingredients of even the most basic life.

If you're talking about a "complex machine", then you ARE talking about relatively modern organisms. By "relatively modern", I mean organisms which may still be 3 billion years old, but which are probably millions of years later than the earliest life. The "machinery" of cells needs, among other things, a cell membrane to hold everything in: it's likely that earlier forms of life generated useful proteins which simply floated about in the immediate vicinity of the polynucleotide string and had to be continually replenished as they drifted away. An alternative theory is that life developed in naturally-occuring lipid "bubbles" which would act as primitive cell membranes.

When you say "shaped by millions of years of evolution" you realize that you are arguing in a circle?

There is nothing circular about the "millions of years of evolution": we know THAT happened. It isn't relevant to abiogenesis, but it has had a profound effect on everything that's happened since.

And the tree topling and the grading of pebbles is completely irrelevant to the subject of communicative information. Please explain how geologists interpreting the history of natural grading is analogous to the intelligent order that exists in DNA.

A toppling tree is an example of an unintelligent event which causes one life form to interact with another. Pebbles on a beach are an example of a random distribution made non-random by the selective action of a force. When geneticists study DNA, they see a similar phenomenon: randomness heavily modified by natural selection which has built up useful structures out of chaos.

Replication is only a small part of life. The true miracle of life is how we, as intelligent beings, came into existance regardless of the method used. As Voltaire said, "there must be some difference between the ideas of Newton and the dung of a mule."

Now we've moved from abiogenesis back to evolution again. Intelligent beings are a product of evolution.

I don't claim to know all of the answers but I do think the case can be fairly drawn that both sides of this discussion believe in miracles. I am just trying to make the atheist face up to that fact. I already concede that I believe in miracles. Why are atheists so reluctant to admit the same?

Because you haven't yet identified anything that requires a miracle. If abiogenesis can be explained by random chance and everything that's happened since can be explained by evolution, where is the miracle needed? Even if there are some things we don't understand yet (such as the transition from an RNA-type replicator to DNA and its "three-letter words" code), that doesn't mean that a "miracle" is required: that would be a "God of the gaps" argument.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"Through evolution - which can't happen without life, which can't happen without replication."

I am glad to see that you frankly admit that evolution cannot happen without life. Maybe you can help me explain that to Jack. And yes, replication is a necessry part of life but there is certainly more to it than that.

At this stage, yess. However, evolution can work when there is replication plus any random factor.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln, you don't seem to be paying attention. Goingonit and I agree about that.

[Lincoln]

Jack,

It is difficult to argue with you because you keep changing your theory. It might be easier if you spelled out the process that you envision. Now you re saying that the code in not important when before you said that it was divided somehow.

"These are features of modern DNA-based replication. According to abiogenesis theorists, DNA itself was a later development: therefore the three-letter code system in DNA would also be a later development. The formation of polynucleotides from free-floating nucleotides isn't dependent on the existence of this code structure."

Whether sooner or later and whether we are talking about DNA or RNA the problem remains. Please give an answer to the question. How is the random string of DNA/RNA divided into the 3 letter code?

And yes, I agree that your example of free floating nucleotides is theoritically possible (under the exact conditions etc.) but that is simply analogous to my plastic letters blowing in the wind. And the random combination of those leters (or nucleotides) into "polynucleotides" certainly does not solve the information problem nor does it solve the division into code problem. And it certainly does not solve the translation problem.

"Wh is it "absurd"? Why is it a "false notion"? Calculations have shown that a huge variety of organic molecules would form in a relatively short period of time under early-Earth conditions. There are no "natural laws" which would stop this happening."

If you will spell out your theory I will tell you why. As it stands now you are building on a foundation that ignores the basic requirement of life and that is information and the translation of that information into actual work. If your idea of sustainable life is polynucleotides floating around and combining with others then you have a point.


"If you're talking about a "complex machine", then you ARE talking about relatively modern organisms. By "relatively modern", I mean organisms which may still be 3 billion years old, but which are probably millions of years later than the earliest life. The "machinery" of cells needs, among other things, a cell membrane to hold everything in: it's likely that earlier forms of life generated useful proteins which simply floated about in the immediate vicinity of the polynucleotide string and had to be continually replenished as they drifted away. An alternative theory is that life developed in naturally-occuring lipid "bubbles" which would act as primitive cell membranes."

No, I am talking about sustainable life in its absolutely basic form. The only way to escape the "machine" inference is to ignore sustainability. If you do that then you have only proved the laws of physics and not how life come into existance. For one thing a membrane of one sort or another is absolutely essential. The early suggested life form must also be capable of passing along information to projeny. It must be able to grow to maturity where it can reproduce and it must capture, store and transduce energy for work. It must also have genetic stability while at the same time allowing for diversity so that there is a possibility for natural selection to begin. I am leaving off a few more basic requirements but you theory must in any case solve the information problem or it is simply a straw man.

"There is nothing circular about the "millions of years of evolution": we know THAT happened. It isn't relevant to abiogenesis, but it has had a profound effect on everything that's happened since."

You assume that human intelligence is a product of evolution. You then assume that assumption is true. On that assumption you attempt to answer the questions here about intelligent intervention. The topic IS intelligent intervention. And it is intelligent intervention that is or is not required in abiogenesis. You cannot assume that "evolution did it" unless you have already excluded the possibility that intelligent intervention did it. You are arguing from a position of belief not deductive reasoning.

"A toppling tree is an example of an unintelligent event which causes one life form to interact with another. Pebbles on a beach are an example of a random distribution made non-random by the selective action of a force. When geneticists study DNA, they see a similar phenomenon: randomness heavily modified by natural selection which has built up useful structures out of chaos."

You second example is a variation of the "snowflake argument" and it does not touch the information question. Patterns and order are not the questions. The tree falling is simply life already in existence reacing with other existent life. Regardless of supposed randomness that some think is in the present DNA there is certainly an intelligently ordered code. Why do ignore the real problem and cloud it with pebbles and trees falling?

"Intelligent beings are a product of evolution."

More circular reasoning. You can only say that if no one or nothing can convince you that that your initial assumption is false. This is belief based of exactly the same sort that you accuse creationists of resorting to.

"Because you haven't yet identified anything that requires a miracle. If abiogenesis can be explained by random chance and everything that's happened since can be explained by evolution, where is the miracle needed? Even if there are some things we don't understand yet (such as the transition from an RNA-type replicator to DNA and its "three-letter words" code), that doesn't mean that a "miracle" is required: that would be a "God of the gaps" argument."

You certainly have not explained abiogneesis by random chance. Please explain how the string of DNA is divided into 3 letter codons? Please explain how the translation works so that "random" code can actually do something? Show how the translation can exist without the dependency on the code. And show how the code is useful without the translation. Show how the stop and start codes work and what happens if they do not work or if they are misplaced by even one nucleotide.

Show how early life repairs itself so that the whole thing does not deterioriate. What are the ribisomes and where does the information come from for their construction? Can they work without information? Why should a random code be expected to plan on the necessary outcome which is far down the line in the process but is nevertheless absolutely essential for the operation of the whole?

These are only a few question that remain that you have not even touched. A theory is absurd if it ignores the central problem. Anyone can build a strawman and then set fire to it.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Jack,

It is difficult to argue with you because you keep changing your theory. It might be easier if you spelled out the process that you envision. Now you re saying that the code in not important when before you said that it was divided somehow.

Again, we need to be clear about whether it's abiogenesis or evolution that's being discussed. If it's abiogenesis, then the three-letter codons of DNA are irrelevant. If it's evolution, then discussion of "information" is irrelevant (because evolution creates information). If it's the origin of the code, the current answer is "we don't know": the transition to DNA as the primary replicator is a gray area at present. But "we don't know" doesn't mean "it must have been a miracle".

Whether sooner or later and whether we are talking about DNA or RNA the problem remains. Please give an answer to the question. How is the random string of DNA/RNA divided into the 3 letter code?

Do you actually mean "how IS", or "how WAS"? Surely what's relevant to the discussion is how did the code come to be? And my answer is "I don't know". But research into the properties of polynucleotides indicates that the present code didn't have to be a feature of life from the outset. Once life is "up and running", useful new features can accumulate.

If you will spell out your theory I will tell you why. As it stands now you are building on a foundation that ignores the basic requirement of life and that is information and the translation of that information into actual work. If your idea of sustainable life is polynucleotides floating around and combining with others then you have a point.

Thank you. Yes, I'm saying that the inforamtion requirement is likely to be very small at the "polynucleotides floating around" stage. Small enough for random chemistry to produce a suitable molecule.

No, I am talking about sustainable life in its absolutely basic form. The only way to escape the "machine" inference is to ignore sustainability. If you do that then you have only proved the laws of physics and not how life come into existance. For one thing a membrane of one sort or another is absolutely essential. The early suggested life form must also be capable of passing along information to projeny. It must be able to grow to maturity where it can reproduce and it must capture, store and transduce energy for work. It must also have genetic stability while at the same time allowing for diversity so that there is a possibility for natural selection to begin. I am leaving off a few more basic requirements but you theory must in any case solve the information problem or it is simply a straw man.

Sustainable life in its absolutely basic form would still be floating around in the primordial soup, a rich source of useful organic molecules. It is also likely that life arose in areas where these chamicals would be more concentrated, such as in tidal pools or within porous rocks. In such environments, useful proteins forming on the polynucleotide would be more likely to remain in the vicinity. And the passing-on of information arises from the fact that the composition of a new polynucleotide is dependent on that of its progenitor, the molecule that attracted the free nucleotides and caused them to line up in a matching sequence.

"There is nothing circular about the "millions of years of evolution": we know THAT happened. It isn't relevant to abiogenesis, but it has had a profound effect on everything that's happened since."

You assume that human intelligence is a product of evolution. You then assume that assumption is true. On that assumption you attempt to answer the questions here about intelligent intervention. The topic IS intelligent intervention. And it is intelligent intervention that is or is not required in abiogenesis. You cannot assume that "evolution did it" unless you have already excluded the possibility that intelligent intervention did it. You are arguing from a position of belief not deductive reasoning.

This was in response to a comment which specifically referred to human intelligence, which is the result of evolution. Even if abiogenesis was indeed a divine miracle, it remains true that humans evolved from apes, which evolved from smaller primates, which evolved from rodentlike critters, and so forth.

You certainly have not explained abiogneesis by random chance. Please explain how the string of DNA is divided into 3 letter codons? Please explain how the translation works so that "random" code can actually do something? Show how the translation can exist without the dependency on the code. And show how the code is useful without the translation. Show how the stop and start codes work and what happens if they do not work or if they are misplaced by even one nucleotide.

There are several issues here. As previously mentioned, a self-replicating polynucleotide simply attracts free nucleotides which line up along the polynucleotide strand, forming a new polynucleotide strand with a matching sequence, with no need for extra "machinery" at this early stage (when free nucleotides are still available in the primordial soup). And the displacement you mention is known as a "frameshift mutation": it scrambles the genetic code along the remainder of that strand. Such mutations are usually harmful, and thus eliminated by natural selection. Sometimes they are useful: in one case, a frameshift mutation in a bacterium living downstream from a nylon factory destroyed the bug's ability to digest normal food, but the malformed digestive enzyme it generated was able to digest nylon, and the bacterium thrived.

Why should a random code be expected to plan on the necessary outcome which is far down the line in the process but is nevertheless absolutely essential for the operation of the whole?

According to evlutionary theory, this cannot happen. Therefore it would be good evidence for supernatural intervention if it DID happen. But what actually happens is that evolution progresses by small incremental steps, not long chains of coincidences which don't produce any improvement at all until the chain is complete. Metabolic pathways are a good example of this: short, simple processes for transforming food into useful substances become gradually more elaborate as intermediate stages arise which are chemically more efficient. As a result, modern organisms are left with several different coexisting pathways.

For further details of the DNA code, I suggest you check out this thread on the Secular Web's Evolution/Creation forum, where some professional geneticists have been explaining it in more detail than I can.

[Lincoln]

Thanks for the link Jack.

I read most of the thread and it was very interesting except the subject of information was not addressed. I find that it seldom is which is why I brought it up here. It is actually one of two central issues along with the machine aspect of life. Those two issues are not "gaps" but rather essential foundations of any abiogenesis of life wherever natural selection is assumed to have entered into the proposed solution.

I cannot refute you theory entirely because you never said what it was. Your statement "I don't know" however was refreshing so that is certainly a begining for any of us in our continued search for the actual truth.

"If it's abiogenesis, then the three-letter codons of DNA are irrelevant. If it's evolution, then discussion of "information" is irrelevant (because evolution creates information). If it's the origin of the code, the current answer is "we don't know": the transition to DNA as the primary replicator is a gray area at present. But "we don't know" doesn't mean "it must have been a miracle"."

The reason no one knows how the DNA code arose is because it logically takes a miracle and no one can really explain a miracle. I think however that an intelligent mental force is inferred because of its necesssity in similar codes that have always without even one exception required an intelligent source for their origin. Anyway that is all in my book. Lets expolore what we do know however about life regardless of evolution.

It is information based. All other forms of life that you suggest do not compare to what we know. It is simply irrelevent to propose a theory without discussing the origin of the coded comunication. Evolution cannot create communication. Natural selection can only (supposedly) add more to or subtract from what already exists. If a machine must exist before it can be improved or altered then it is absurd to simply discuss the alteration until the basis of the machine is built to begin with. You have evaded this on every turn.

A string of DNA is useless unless it is divided into 3 letter codons. These codons are useless unless they are translated and put to the actual work of making proteins. DNA does not divide itself into 3 letter code according to any of the laws of physics. It can only do it once a biological process is underway which specifically applies new chemicals and therefore applies chemical laws in a specific and well regulated fashion. The code is effectively manifest by the introduction of enzymes that are manufactured according to a strict order of amino acids. This fact along with the asociated mechanisms that must exist to support this are themselves dependent on the code (in either DNA or RNA). The translation takes place in the ribisomes which are information based machines. Their construction is also dependant on the code that cannot exist until it is manifested by the operation of the tanslation mechanism.

The machine must exist before the code can exist and the code must exist before the machinery can. You must solve this problem (which I have oversimplified), or any theory of the origin of life is irrelevant because that is like building a straw man and comparing that to a real living and breathing one.

"As previously mentioned, a self-replicating polynucleotide simply attracts free nucleotides which line up along the polynucleotide strand, forming a new polynucleotide strand with a matching sequence, with no need for extra "machinery" at this early stage (when free nucleotides are still available in the primordial soup). And the displacement you mention is known as a "frameshift mutation": it scrambles the genetic code along the remainder of that strand. Such mutations are usually harmful, and thus eliminated by natural selection. Sometimes they are useful..."

That attraction is not a code of course and that does not answer the question. Because you conceede that you don't know I will not elaborate except to say that you cannot then logically conclude anything about the end result of intelligence (as in humans). If the origin of the code followed the information laws that are used today then it would seem logical to suggest that the origin was according to the same laws. That then would imply that an external source of intelligence was necessary. If that is the case then any conclusion that evolution did it is entirely uncalled for. It would be more logical if you said that you do not know here as well if you truly are basing your opinions of logical deduction and not on belief.

The "frameshift" as you said would not only be nearly always harmfull as you said but in a primitive code it would be disasterous. That is because the initial instructions must be perfect including the exact placement of the periods and capital letters (stop and start codes). A sentence (genes) would not only have to arise randomly for life to begin in order to even translate the code but it must also be several hundreds or thousands of sentences in length with all of the puncuation marks in place! This is impossible and you are welcome to prove me wrong. Simply run your computer on a random program and produce even one paragraph. Even Richard Dawkins does not believe that is possible. And I have already showed in the chapter on Intelligent Intervntion how he tainted his expeiments. Natural selection or evolution of course does not enter into the initial instructions at all.

"But what actually happens is that evolution progresses by small incremental steps, not long chains of coincidences which don't produce any improvement at all until the chain is complete."

Incremental steps do not help us when the whole needs to be complete to begin with. Behe proved that. Now you should be able to see why life is built from the same irriducable complexity. Behe proved it while evolution was in effect. How much more is it proved when evolution cannot even operate (as in abbiogenesis).

So we end up not with two "gaps" but rather with two insurmountable obstacles. The commnication problem and the machine problem. "Floating nucleotides" and your solution to a problem which defnes life in way that is not even remotely analogous to the present form, does not touch either of these two central issues.

[mactbone]

The reason no one knows how the DNA code arose is because it logically takes a miracle and no one can really explain a miracle. I think however that an intelligent mental force is inferred because of its necesssity in similar codes that have always without even one exception required an intelligent source for their origin. Anyway that is all in my book. Lets expolore what we do know however about life regardless of evolution.

If I win the lottery, despite it being one chance in however millions, it is not considered a miracle. Therefore, when discussing probability, which, as you can see, there was at least one chance, in however many for DNA code to arrange itself in that manner, it is perfectly reasonable, and almost assured to happen, because for us to be able to discuss it, this would have to happen.

If there is at least one chance, in however many you want to discuss, that one chance will happen, somewhere, sometime, no miracles involved.

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by Goingonit
The earth was created 4.5 billion years ago.

Could you please prove that?
Thanks,

David

[mactbone]

I'm thinking that through the use of finding the half-lifes of various geo stuff, they can find out how old things are. Although, WRT, to the Earth's age, I think they used something else.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Big Dave


Could you please prove that?
Thanks,

David

It's been round a long time. It doesn't matter to my argument if it's 4.5 billion or 1 billion or 90 gazillion.

[Big Dave]

Originally posted by Goingonit
It's been round a long time. It doesn't matter to my argument if it's 4.5 billion or 1 billion or 90 gazillion.

Well, 10,000 years is a long time. At least to me. So how long is long enough for evolution?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Big Dave


Well, 10,000 years is a long time. At least to me. So how long is long enough for evolution?

1 billion.

[Lincoln]

MackTBone,

You get the privilege if receiving my last post on this thread because I am leaving Thailand the day after tomorrow and I do not expect to have time to continue this debate. You are presenting a logical falacy that is commonly used by atheists to prove that all things are possible including miracles. Under that definition it is no miracle that Jesus rose from the dead after three days. In fact acording to your definition it is far more likely because all of the chemicals are still there and the DNA is still intact in at least part of the body. So if you are conceding that Christianity is logicially based then welcome to church!

"If I win the lottery, despite it being one chance in however millions, it is not considered a miracle. Therefore, when discussing probability, which, as you can see, there was at least one chance, in however many for DNA code to arrange itself in that manner, it is perfectly reasonable, and almost assured to happen, because for us to be able to discuss it, this would have to happen.
If there is at least one chance, in however many you want to discuss, that one chance will happen, somewhere, sometime, no miracles involved."

The problem is that you haven't won the lottery in the first place unless you have already excluded God or a creator or any intelligent intervention whatsoever in your theory of how life or the DNA code came into existence. Also there is no probably that even one intricate machine such as a watch can come into existance without intelligent intervention. The chance is Zero. For you to asume that an even more intricate machine, especially since it is communication based, came into existance defies the same laws that makes the first probability zero.

I know that you guys are hoping for a miracle but it is not going to happen unless you can change the laws of physics upon which all of life and biology is based. You must also change information laws upon which all communication is based -- which is an essential part of biology. Go ahead and prove me wrong. Set up a code that establishes a language that can be translated which enables comunication without inteligent intervention. And please don't say that "evolution did it". Invoking that God becomes rather tiring when we are trying to discuss things factually and logically.

But I suppose it is posible for marble statues to line up and wave at us when we pass by and then invite us over for lunch and after dinner cocktails. It is also possible that there is a God which atheists will pretend does not exist regardless of the extremes necessary to maintain that delusion.

Anyway my friends, atheist or otherwise, I will see you all when I get back to the United States. Feel free to e-mail me at: rfhendrix@yahoo.com.

Sa wat de crop and Mai pen rai!

[Goingonit]

Bye! Nice arguing with you!