Dr. Sproul basically made the same point I made earlier in this thread, i.e., that history shows how various interpretations of scripture have been corrected by natural revelation/science, and thus when the two seem to be in conflict today, it may very well be that it is our interpretations of scripture that are wrong (and of course it could also be the scientists who are wrong).Administrator said:
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
If we both agree that chemistry is non-random, then what exactly were you accusing scientists of deliberately concealing when you said, "Darwinists do not explain the mathematical impossibilities of amino acids randomly combining"?Wormwood said:
What laws?
If you're going to accuse me of lying, you'd better have something to back it up. Or is this going to be yet another case where someone accuses me of something and as soon as I ask for any actual evidence of me doing it, the other person just leaves the thread?
We know amino acids exist, and we know they chemically combine to form proteins. So if what you're saying is true, then what by what non-chemistry process do those things occur?
Wormwood
Chaps
Actually, I said,
"Darwinists do not explain the mathematical impossibilities of amino acids randomly combining to form proteins" Proteins, as you know (I would think) do not form randomly. The only place you find proteins produced is in a cell where amino acids are formed into long chains when then fold into functional proteins so they can perform specific tasks in the cell. Thus, we see nucleotide sequences as the catalyst for protein formation...which only occurs in cells. Thus, proteins are built in cells, they do not naturally form outside of the cell based on chemical necessity as you were leading readers to believe. So, to suggest proteins form spontaneously which then could conceivably result in the spontaneous generation of a living cell (carried along by various chemical attractions, of course) is not true. Not only do amino acid chains fail to self construct easily in this manner as you suggest, but they must be constructed in very specific sequences in order to fold into functional proteins. It does not happen outside the guidance of DNA and to suggest it can due to the necessity of non-random chemical forces which lends themselves to such specific constructions...is dishonest (of course this is with me accepting your previous claims to have tons of education in the field of biology and life sciences). One doesnt have to be a creationist to attest to this very basic biological fact.
You know, laws of chemistry. Such as the relationship between gas pressure and temperature....rules that govern various reactions? The study of abiogenesis has shown that even in very controlled settings, various compounds break down under certain conditions which prevent the formation of complex structures. A environment very unlike the earth's environment must be formulated in efforts to create such reactions. Yet, you make it sound like, oh yeah, chemistry just does that. Just throw the base elements into the air and they snap together like magnets into fully functional proteins. I assume you know better.
Well, either you are a very poor communicator, are uninformed about basic microbiology,or you are intentionally making the casual reader think that proteins and other key elements to the production of single cell organisms are just real likely to snap together in a functional manner due to their base chemical properties. It is not true and you know it. Proteins do not just form based on the chemical elements of amino acids. Proteins are only created by living organisms and nucleotide sequencing, not by their own base chemical properties that cause them to snap together in functional ways.
There is a difference between a biological processes and a sheerly chemical process that is unguided by a living organism. Proteins form by biological processes in living organisms. They do not form outside of living organisms based on mere chemical process that bring them together. By your rationale, the words you are writing are nothing but chemical processes.... After all, its the chemicals in your brain causing your neurons to fire which move the muscles in your fingers that type the keys on the keyboard. This is nothing more than pure paltering. You are intentionally leaving critical information out as a means of impeding someones decision-making process. This is why I cant have conversations with you. You are so fixed on rhetoric and trying to look like you are winning a discussion that you seem eager to employ any tactic necessary, even if it clouds the reality of the subject at hand. I am not interested in these types of ego wars.
Then your accusation makes no sense at all. You've accused scientists of not explaining something that you, me, and everyone else agrees doesn't happen. :wacko:Wormwood said:
Where exactly did I lead anyone to believe that proteins form outside cells?
Good thing no one said that then.
Well sorta....you do know there's a rather large amount of functional redundancy in amino acids, right? IOW, in a lot of cases you can swap out amino acids and not alter the functionality of the protein.
Nope, sorry....that's far too vague to be of any value whatsoever. Remember, you claimed "laws of chemistry prohibit the self-formation of vital cell structures". Name those specific laws. Also, which "vital cell structures" are prohibited from being formed, and if they're not forming naturally, how are they forming?
Nope, never said that at all.
It looks to me like you completely and totally misunderstood the point I was making with the hydrogen and oxygen example. I guess that explains why you keep repeating this silly creationist argument no matter how many times you're corrected on it.
Let's try again. Remember, you claimed that scientists were deliberately concealing or avoiding "mathematical impossibilities of amino acids randomly combining". As we've just been over and agreed, the combination of amino acids is not a random process. Thus at the heart of your accusation rests a rather obvious straw man, i.e., randomness in the formation of proteins. Any actual calculations that are based on the idea of the process occurring randomly would be meaningless, because the process is not random.
Do you understand that very basic point?
In order to illustrate the fact that your objection was a silly straw man, I offered the example of sparking a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and getting non-random results (water). The point of that example was not to say "proteins form all on their own outside cells", but to point out how the fundamental assumption in your accusation (amino acids combine randomly) is a complete straw man.
Do you understand?
To be honest with you, I can't figure out how you didn't get that the first time. I mean, look at what I wrote....
the reason those "mathematical impossibilities" never surface is because as soon as anyone does any calculations based on the assumption that chemistry is a series of independent random events between elements and molecules, all they'll have done is show that they know pretty much nothing about how chemistry actually works (or they do, and are being deliberately dishonest).
For an illustration, think of a container of hydrogen and oxygen that we spark. What do we get? We get pretty much all water (H2O). Now according to the creationist version of chemistry presented above, we'd have to be startled and amazed at how such a thing could have occurred due merely to things "randomly combining". How can that be!!!!????
But then we remember, chemistry is anything but a series of independent random events.So this whole thing is nothing more than a creationist mantra, that no matter how many times it's exposed as a silly, rather ignorant straw man, it somehow continues to get repeated.
Even though there's not one thing in there about proteins forming outside of cells, and there's quite a bit in there about your accusation being a straw man specifically because it assumes randomness in chemistry, somehow you took away from that that I was saying proteins form outside cells and you completely missed the point about amino acids combining randomly being a straw man.
I have to say....that's really bizarre.
Ok then, in the processes that make up protein formation, point to the part that isn't chemistry.
What am I leaving out?
I'd suggest you slow down a bit and take the time to read and understand a post before you respond to it. It's pretty obvious from the record in this thread that you tend to read into things.
Wormwood
Chaps
So why is it taught in textbooks that teach Darwinian evolution and why isnt such a theory considered "religious"?
smh.... River, do you not recall what statement I made that started this bru-ha-ha? Let me refresh you... Maybe for the same reason Darwinists do not explain the mathematical impossibilities of amino acids randomly combining to form proteins and other cellular structures possible for the supposed spontaneous generation of the single cell that mutated over billions of years to form all the diverse life forms we see today. Of course, when the Darwin disciple omits such things, they are just open to further discovery and exploration. When the creationist omits such things, they are hiding something or rejecting the basic principles of science in order to promote their "religion." Funny how that works.
My comment was specifically referring to the "spontaneous generation of the single cell." It is taught right alongside Darwinian evolution and yet this nonsense can be claimed in a textbook and be considered "science" even through there is no mathematical, chemical or biological scientific evidence to validate it. When creationists cry foul, we are accused of being narrow and trying to answer everything with "well, God did it." Yet someone gives a theory about the flood or some other Biblical account and you want specific scientific detail to account for every move of the earth and every drop of water or its blown off as ignoring "fundamental issues." My point was that the rules are not consistent and you started challenging me on the issue. Thus, here we are.
Why is it that every time I try to engage in a discussion with you we end up talking about the discussion that led to the discussion?
Good grief. Once again, please follow the discussion. I pointed out the hypocrisy shown to creationists when Darwinists love to teach abiogenesis in biology textbooks as the starting block of Darwin's tree of life. I said such spontaneous generation was mathematically impossible yet it never stops the theory. You countered with "Wait, wait, wait. Before we go any further on this WW, are you actually saying you believe chemistry is best described (statistically) as a series of independent random events?" So, lets make a diagram to help things out a bit shall we?
River - AiG ignore fundamental issues in their theories. Why is this?
Wormwood - Darwinists do it all the time. Spontaneous generation of cells is taught in textbooks without addressing fundamental mathematicall impossibilities.
River - Are you saying chemistry is random?
Wormwood - No, I am saying the laws of chemistry prohibit the self-formation of vital cell structures.
River - What laws of chemistry?
Wormwood - You know that proteins and other cell structures do not self-construct to form functioning cells on their own. Chemistry does not account for the accumulation proteins necessary to create the first cell.
River - Nope, never said it did.
smh. This is too tiring. I cannot carry on a conversation on my end as well as explain to you what you said on your end which resulted in my responses.
Show any textbook that teaches the origin of the first life forms was the result of random processes. I'm gonna go ahead and predict right now that you won't.Wormwood said:
Yeah, and it's still a silly creationist argument that has a straw man at its core ("amino acids randomly combining to form proteins").
Which you clearly thought scientists believed occurred via "amino acids randomly combining to form proteins". Now we know that to be a straw man.
Not the way you described it.
Here's a tip.....try actually addressing the science as it is, rather than attacking straw men that only exist in the minds of creationists.
Yeah, I tend to think of boiling off the oceans, evaporating the atmosphere, and turning the entire crust of the earth into molten lava as rather "fundamental". But I guess I'm just funny that way.
Then how about we clear this up?
If we both agree that amino acids do not combine to form proteins randomly, do you agree that your original objection that "Darwinists do not explain the mathematical impossibilities of amino acids randomly combining to form proteins" is an accusation based on a straw man?
Um......are you aware that you never actually showed anything from any textbook?
Right...."mathematically impossible" being nothing more than an assertion that is both without actual math, and based on a straw man ("amino acids randomly combining to form proteins").
Are you actually still sticking to that accusation?
Well.....yeah. Do you even understand how important it is to (statistically) accurately describe the events you're attempting estimate the probabilities for?
Wait a sec.....do you not understand how it's a completely different set of probability calculations if the events are independent and random? Is that what's really going on here? You just didn't understand the creationist argument you were parroting?
Be honest with me here WW. When you first made that accusation, did you actually have any calculations? Or is it more accurate to say that not only didn't you have any such calculations, you really wouldn't even know how to do such a thing in the first place?
Now you're trying to rewrite history. Notice how in your first part there you deliberately left out the "amino acids randomly combining to form proteins" part?
Wow....that is outrageously dishonest of you to try and rewrite the discussion that way. I guess this is what creationism forces you to do. Maybe one day you'll tire of defending such ignorant and silly arguments and talking points, and having to stoop to such deceit to do so....maybe.
I don't blame you. If you can't ever bring yourself to admit even the most basic of errors, I'm sure these discussions are quite tiring for you. You probably should have bailed a while ago. Now it just looks like you've talked yourself into a corner and are running away.
Wormwood
Chaps
River,
I have a busy day today so I cannot reply to everything at the moment. However, you have your head in the sand if you dont think Biology textbooks are teaching kids that life started by natural process of molecules joining together in a very different type of world that would have permitted such impossible scenarios. In fact, here is a video that compliments the very popular Holt McDougal Biology textbooks used in high schools (not to mention I remember reading these things in my own biology courses in college and high school). So, YES it is taught, and taught in a way that doesnt indicate how incredibly fanciful and mathematically impossible such scenarios are....
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-origin-of-life-on-earth-theories-and-explanations.html
I have a busy day today so I cannot reply to everything at the moment. However, you have your head in the sand if you dont think Biology textbooks are teaching kids that life started by natural process of molecules joining together in a very different type of world that would have permitted such impossible scenarios. In fact, here is a video that compliments the very popular Holt McDougal Biology textbooks used in high schools (not to mention I remember reading these things in my own biology courses in college and high school). So, YES it is taught, and taught in a way that doesnt indicate how incredibly fanciful and mathematically impossible such scenarios are....
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-origin-of-life-on-earth-theories-and-explanations.html
Oh, well dont you know? "It was a very different world back then...." Why not? Works for naturalists...Yeah, I tend to think of boiling off the oceans, evaporating the atmosphere, and turning the entire crust of the earth into molten lava as rather "fundamental". But I guess I'm just funny that way.
WW,
Look, this is really pretty simple. If you're going to claim that something is "mathematically impossible", then you should probably show some actual.....you know.....math.
Do you have any or not?
Look, this is really pretty simple. If you're going to claim that something is "mathematically impossible", then you should probably show some actual.....you know.....math.
Do you have any or not?
Wormwood
Chaps
No, Im just making all this stuff up. Oh, wait. Now that I think about it, you shoudl look at the work of Alexander Cairns-Smith, the 1966 Philidelphia conference entitled "Mathematical Challenges to Neo-Darwinism," the work of MIT physicist Victor Weisskoph, MIT biochemist Robert Sauer, or Cambridge PhDs William Dembski and Paul Nelson.
Saur's team argued that the chance of a functional sequence of amino acids coming together to form a protein is about 1 chance in 1063. There are 1065 estimated atoms in our galaxy...just for perspective. Douglas Axe also did research on this, he incorporated the ability for protein sequences to vary and retain function. He published a paper in 2004 (axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences). His research led him to the conclusion that the odds were estimated at 1 to 1077! Newer estimates put the chance at 1 in 10164 as biochemists and mathematicians began to add in other critical factors.
http://www.toriah.org/articles/axe-2004.pdf
Wormwood
Chaps
Well, lets see what our Biology textbook producing websites have to say on the subject...
Ohh, you're right. They dont teach that amino acids randomly combined to form proteins (a type of monomer). Oh wait. Nope, thats exactly what these publishers say. Amino acids had to be made (which is a curious term for a mindless process). Then those amino acids had to become monomers (proteins) (which is mathematically impossible as shown above). And THEN it get tricky! As if the random creation of amino acids that suddenly link to form functional proteins isnt difficult enough!
So, just keep telling yourself its all a creationist illusion and that none of this is real. Its all being made up and somehow all these mathematicians and biochemists are closet evangelicals looking to undermine "science".
Do you have any links or actual citations? Other than a conference from over half a century ago, that's all far too vague to be of any use.Wormwood said:
Was that probability related to the origin of the first life forms, or to evolution of proteins in already-existing life? From what I can find, it looks like his work is related to the latter and not the former. And just for more perspective, in every 200 gallons of water there are about 1012 bacterial cells. That means within a mere 5-6 generations, the number of trials (replication events) exceed the probability you cited, and that's just in a relatively small amount of water! Throw in all the bacteria and the like that exist in the soil and other places, and suddenly those odds aren't that big of a deal, are they?
Since you cited this I'm going to assume you fully understand it and I don't need to explain anything.
First, as with the above, Axe's work relates to the evolution of functional proteins in already existing bacteria, which means it's meaningless to your assertions about "mathematical impossibilities" surrounding the origins of life.
Second, Axe (and let's be clear, this is good solid work that's consistent with other work in the field) took a very specific functional protein that was very sensitive to change and took a backwards approach to trying to figure out how broad and wide the functional sequence space was. He did this by randomly substituting amino acids in a key location and testing for enzyme activity. Other researchers had come up with similar results.
Finally, as with the above, in every 200 gallons of water there are about 1012 bacterial cells. That means within a few generations, the number of trials (replication events) exceed the probability Axe estimated, and that's just in a relatively small amount of water! Throw in all the bacteria and the like that exist in the soil and other places, and suddenly those odds aren't that big of a deal, are they?
I like what the textbook has. It's a pretty good overview, but I think you don't really understand the subject matter very well.
No, they sure don't. So where did you get the idea that textbooks teach that?
Also, you misunderstand the material. The monomers they're talking about are nucleotides, and the polymers they're talking about are nucleotide sequences (RNA, DNA, or another pre-DNA molecule). So the steps they're describing are the formation of simple nucleotide sequences that are contained within lipid membranes. The whole structure is the protobiont that they mention.
Actually, amino acids aren't all that uncommon.
See, this is the problem with trying to discuss this with you. You barely understand the subject, and basically only know what you've copied from your creationist sources. As a result, you've taken material from two different fields of study and tried to use one discredit the other. Specifically, you're trying to use work done on estimating the functional sequence space for very specific metabolic enzymes in organisms that already exist, to discredit work being done on the origins of the first life. Not only that, but you're confusing and misusing terms and not understanding Axe's work in its proper context (probabilities of the evolution of a specific enzyme in an existing population relative to the actual size and reproductive rate of that population). Throw in your misunderstanding regarding what polymers the textbook was talking about and you see where I'm coming from.
No, it's patently obvious that the problem here isn't with the science, but with your understanding of it.
To summarize:
1) You still haven't shown any sort of calculations to back up your claim of "mathematical impossibility" regarding the origin of life, and your accusation that scientists are deliberately concealing it.
2) The probability calculations you did show were about the odds of a specific organism that exists today evolving a very specific metabolic enzyme, and those odds are entirely within the range of the population size and reproductive rates of that organism.
3) You still haven't shown any textbook that teaches the origin of the first life forms was the result of random processes.
Now usually in past conversations with you, once we reach the point where you are technically unable to discuss the material you've been copying from your creationist sources, you make some sort of snide comment and leave the thread. Usually you try and cover your behind with something like "Well, I can see you just can't be reached RJ", apparently hoping that no one will notice the obvious....you bailed on the thread because you just couldn't defend your own posts.
Are we doing that again?
I think we can concede that RJ definitely has the lead when it comes to being inculcated into evolution.
Wormwood
Chaps
Actually the link is to an article from 2004.
I understand it just fine. I just dont like or accept the fact that they jump from one stage to the next (amino acids to polymers) as if these things just happen and no explanation is needed. If its so easy and cells can just form, given enough time and random trials, why cant we create a living cell in the controlled setting of a lab with all of our technology and instrumentation? The fact is, this is misleading. It makes it sound like such an event is fairly simple and would have just easily happened given the right circumstances on an early earth. That is not the case and you know it. The point is that you want to rant and rail against creationists and their theories of floods and so forth because the math and physics doesnt line up exactly to your liking, but when something like this is brought up...you want to make it sound like if we just sprinkle in a few billion years and a different setting, abiogenesis is just inevitable. Moreover, your claim that because there are 1016 bacteria in 200 gallons of water as a means of arguing that one chance in 10164 isnt that unreasonable just tells me you have no understanding of math or probability. It's like arguing that if we spin a roulette wheel a hundred billion times, its inevitable that black number 16 will eventually hit 500x in a row. No, it isnt. The odds of such an occurrence FAR outweigh the conceivable possibilities...even if you add in another 100 billion spins.
Well they dont specify, but either way, its not an answer. RNA first models do not solve the problem. Realistic settings do not permit for the ribose, phosphate molecules and RNA bases to synthesize. Also, nitrogen-rich chemicals that would be needed to form nucleotide bases would stop the production of ribose sugars.
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/8/4396.full
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/246/4935/1248
Also, ribosomes are not really functional as proteins in the ways needed to produce the results Darwinists imagine anymore than a person can build a house with a hot-glue gun. Not only that, but it STILL does not explain how RNA molecules could replicate and evolve to form modern proteins. You still need proteins for the basic living cell and turning self-replicating RNA molecules into the machinery needed to create a protein is no different from the creationist saying the world flooded, but we dont know exactly the physics behind the phenomenon. RNA does not turn into protein creating machinery and to suggest that it can is nothing more than wishful thinking and ultimately saying, "Well it must have happened because we know life exists!" Again, its nothing more than faith in naturalism, which is what is really causing such statements to be written in textbooks...and I see it as no different than faith in the Bible. Its faith in a worldview and has NOTHING to do with science. It is an assertion without being able to explain the details of how such a thing could have happened, which begs the question as to why such a thing should be allowed to be taught or why such a thing isnt considered religious! Only when creationists do it is it called religion. When Darwinists do it its called science. And that was my original point.
Neither are butterflies. I think you are missing the point.
LOL. Oh I see. This is why these conversations always end. You keep deflecting. You ask for the math, you ask for the literature, and you ask for a "scientific" rebuttal to your claims. Then when I give it your response is always, "Oh you must be getting this information from those liars, thieves and puppy abusing creationists!" You dont deal with the information, you just try to slander the sources you feel I am getting the information from. Like I said, I have friends that are PhDs in microbiology and likely have a lot more education and experience in the field than you do. They went to your schools and they read from your textbooks and still disagree with the conclusions. But that cannot be allowed. No, they must be somehow tainted by some online creationist source according to you. It is nothing but deflecting. I gave you the information you demanded and now you want to slander people rather than deal with the content of the information. The conversation becomes pointless when we get to this point (and it always does) because you stop dealing with content and start attacking people's characters to make you feel better about your position. Why cant two intelligent people disagree on a subject and have rational reasons for doing so? Why must you always paint those you disagree with as liars and idiots? To me, this shows you are driven more by an ideology than any content. You are already convinced that those who disagree with you are red-necked hillbillies and regardless of the information you are given you are going to bang that drum til everyone's ears bleed. Your sources are patron saints and those that disagree with you are scientific antichrists. This is the type of narrow thinking that you always act as if you are trying to stamp out, but you are just as bad as the ultra conservative Bible-thumper you so loathe. You just do it from the other side of the aisle.
So, if you want to have an intelligent and respectful conversation, I am always open to that. If you want to attack people and claim their teachers or sources are liars and idiots without addressing the content, then that is a conversation I am unwilling to have. I have better things to do with my time than to try to counsel you about proper etiquette in an intellectual debate.
The article from 2004 is Axe's work, which has nothing to do with the origin of life. The "over half a century old" item I referred to was the "1966 Philidelphia conference entitled "Mathematical Challenges to Neo-Darwinism".Wormwood said:
You really need to understand this before we can move forward. To repeat, Axe's work and probabilities that you cited have nothing to do with the origin of life, but rather are related to the ability of a currently existing organism to evolve a very specific part of a very specific enzyme.
Are we clear on that?
So that brings us back to what kicked this whole thing off in the first place. Remember, your claim was that scientists are deliberately concealing or ignoring the "mathematical impossibility" of life arising via natural means. To this point, you have not supported that accusation at all; you've not shown any actual calculations relating to the origin of life and you haven't shown any evidence of any sort of cover up.
First, again note the shift in your argument. Initially you claimed that scientists are deliberately concealing or ignoring the "mathematical impossibility" of life arising via natural means. But the above
is just you pointing out something I've been saying since I joined this forum......the origin of the first life on earth remains an unanswered question. If you're expecting me to argue otherwise, then you'll be disappointed.
But the problem with what you write above is that you make it seem like the textbook you quoted from teaches that it is a solved issue. But it doesn't do that. From the link, the section starts off with...
"The origin of life on Earth is a highly curious thing. In fact, many scientists have dedicated their entire lives to finding out how life came to be on Earth. There are a few key experiments that we will look at in order to gain an understanding of how scientists have best hypothesized how life started on Earth"
Hypothesized? I thought you've been saying it's presented as an answered question? In fact, throughout that section they consistently refer to all this as a hypothesis. Doesn't quite match your rhetoric, does it?
Um.....turning the crust of the earth entirely to molten lava, boiling off the oceans, and evaporating the atmosphere all in less than a year is a bit more than "the physics aren't to your liking". I mean, come on WW. If you really want to take this seriously then you need to not do things like this.
Where have I done that? In another thread Christianjuggernaught has been complaining because I referred to the origin of life as an "unanswered question", yet here you're complaining because you claim I'm saying "it's just inevitable". So which is it?
How about you start by showing where I said that "it's just inevitable"?
Seriously? You're actually saying the number of trials has no bearing on the ability to achieve an outcome? The odds of winning the lottery are exactly the same if you buy one ticket versus if you buy 1016 tickets?
Again you're arguing against a straw man. I have maintained all along that the origin of life is an unanswered question.
Remember, your claim was that it was "mathematically impossible" for life to arise naturally, and that scientists either ignore or are deliberately concealing this information. But to this point you've not shown any calculations that show natural origins to be "mathematically impossible", nor have you shown any evidence that scientists are ignoring or covering up this information.
You're not being consistent. Here you claim that scientists are taking it on faith that the origin of life has been solved and are presenting it as a fact, yet just above you post links to published papers identifying some of the problems with various hypotheses (at least as they existed 20 years ago). Both can't be true.
You have no idea how angry this makes me. I have taken the time to not only look at and read the material you post and cite, I also took the time to respond to it in some detail. But here you make it seem like I just waved it all away without even looking at it. Look at your previous post where you cited work done by D. Axe, who is a creationist. This is part of my response....
"First, as with the above, Axe's work relates to the evolution of functional proteins in already existing bacteria, which means it's meaningless to your assertions about "mathematical impossibilities" surrounding the origins of life.
Second, Axe (and let's be clear, this is good solid work that's consistent with other work in the field) took a very specific functional protein that was very sensitive to change and took a backwards approach to trying to figure out how broad and wide the functional sequence space was. He did this by randomly substituting amino acids in a key location and testing for enzyme activity. Other researchers had come up with similar results."
Now compare that to your accusation above, "Then when I give it your response is always, "Oh you must be getting this information from those liars, thieves and puppy abusing creationists!" You dont deal with the information, you just try to slander the sources you feel I am getting the information from."
Notice the difference between what you accused me of, and my actual response (where I even complimented Axe's work)? Why do you have to lie like that?
How can that be if you're able to easily find published papers that identify the problems with some of the hypotheses? You're basically saying "Scientists aren't allowed to disagree with origin of life hypotheses. Look at these papers where scientists disagree with origin of life hypotheses!"
So, are you just lying here, or do you really not understand the material you posted? Because this is just weird to see you do this.
Remember, you claimed it is "mathematically impossible" for life to arise naturally and you accused scientists of ignoring or covering up this information. When I asked for your calculations, you provided a link to Axe's paper that has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life (it was about the ability of existing organisms to evolve a specific part of a specific enzyme).
Given that, how can you claim that you gave me the information? Are you actually saying you still think Axe's work is about the origin of life? Or are you just not telling the truth?
And also, who did I slander and where? In order for something to be slander, I would have to say something about someone that isn't true. Where did I do that? Or is this going to be yet one more case where a creationist here accuses me of something, can't back it up, and then just leaves?
Why do you have to lie like this?
In our last two posts, you gave one actual citation (the Axe paper). I read it a couple of times and responded directly to the content of the paper and discussed its findings in the context of our debate. But here you're accusing me of not dealing with content?
I can't tell you how disappointing it is to see you stoop to this sort of thing.
Did you not just accuse me of slander? Did you not just accuse me of ignoring the content of your posts and instead merely attacking people?
How about you deal with the subject? Where are the calculations that show a natural origin of life to be "mathematically impossible"? Where is your evidence that scientists are concealing this information?
Then answer the above and stop making accusations that you can't back up.
Wormwood
Chaps
RJ,
Sorry for the slow reply. I have had a busy weekend.
The focus on Axe's paper, as I pointed out, is the ability for protein sequences to vary and retain function. The issue is not whether or not the paper is referring to the origin of life or not. The point was referring to the specificity of proteins which relates to their ability to retain function. Many Darwinists argue that there is flexibility in the protein structures and that they do not have to be exact to retain function (which, they argue, suggests the odds are not that great for such things to form by chance). Axe deals with this issue in a particular case scenario to show how that although there is a small amount of room for error in protein sequencing, this still does not open things up to the likelihood that such constructions could occur by chance. You were asking for mathematics behind the chances of functional elements of the cell to form by chance. I provided that information as a resource.
All I am asking for is fairness. You accuse the creationist of defying logic because they dont bring up the physics that would lead to oceans boiling off and so forth in the flood. Yet here we have scenarios that are so mathematically ridiculous and so unlikely that we cannot even create such scenarios under controlled and forced conditions...and yet this can be taught as the likely means by which life most probably developed. Its hypocrisy. The fact is that you scream foul at creationists as being "unscientific" or "irrational" and yet the textbooks are allowed to teach the same unscientific hypotheses without challenge because naturalism has been deemed "science." It is not. A naturalistic explanation can be even MORE irrational and unscientific as an explanation based in intelligence. If you see a crime scene and a dead body with 5 bullet wounds in the chest, it is not more "scientific" to try to find a way that the event happened by mere chance.
I dont doubt that. Yet it is taught in biology textbooks as arising due to chance. I think that is wrong and unfair. Creationists are shouted down for proposing views based on faith, but Darwinists are allowed free reign to teach such things about the origin of life without reservation in the public schools. Thus, my argument all along has been the hypocrisy of this and really has nothing to do with your personal views on the matter. You just chose to side with the textbooks...which again, seems curious since you dont seem to believe what they teach on this subject.
That just seems like a cop out to me.
Sorry for the slow reply. I have had a busy weekend.
The focus on Axe's paper, as I pointed out, is the ability for protein sequences to vary and retain function. The issue is not whether or not the paper is referring to the origin of life or not. The point was referring to the specificity of proteins which relates to their ability to retain function. Many Darwinists argue that there is flexibility in the protein structures and that they do not have to be exact to retain function (which, they argue, suggests the odds are not that great for such things to form by chance). Axe deals with this issue in a particular case scenario to show how that although there is a small amount of room for error in protein sequencing, this still does not open things up to the likelihood that such constructions could occur by chance. You were asking for mathematics behind the chances of functional elements of the cell to form by chance. I provided that information as a resource.
I just dont understand how you arent connecting the dots here. In order to have a functional, basic cell that is would even remotely be capable of the type of darwinian evolution claimed by biology textbooks, you need a cell that has a system for producing functional proteins. Axe's work shows that functional proteins, even with the small amount of flexibility in sequences that retain the protein's function, are highly improbable (essentially impossible) to occur by scenarios based in chance.
Well, it seems to me that you are the one shifting your argument. My original statement was that your demand for the exact science behind the flood seemed silly since Darwinists put random chance scenarios as the rationale behind the origin of life and no one bats an eye. Even though it is mathematically impossible based on what we know of protein sequencing and the basic elements of the cell for such a construction to occur by chance scenarios, it is still implied in textbooks that this is what happened. So my point is simply this, "Why is it okay to imply that this is what happened, but its NOT okay to imply that possibly there was a worldwide flood?" Now, I am not saying textbooks should teach a worldwide flood. I understand that this is a matter of faith primarily, and maybe some have sought to construct scentific methods for how such an event could occur. Yet the basis for the view is not grounded in verifiable science, but in faith. Yet, the naturalists argument for the origin of life is no different. Simply saying, "The origin of life on Earth is a highly curious thing. ....scientists have best hypothesized how life started on Earth" doesn't make such statements less a statement of faith. The fact is simply this: Science does not support chance abiogenesis. So why is it taught? Why not say, "The origin of life is a curious thing. Some have best hypothesized that life started by a creative act from a higher power." I mean, both are "hypotheses" that are not based in scientifically verifiable proofs. Why is one hypothesis science and the other faith when neither is backed by anything other than an underlying worldview?
All I am asking for is fairness. You accuse the creationist of defying logic because they dont bring up the physics that would lead to oceans boiling off and so forth in the flood. Yet here we have scenarios that are so mathematically ridiculous and so unlikely that we cannot even create such scenarios under controlled and forced conditions...and yet this can be taught as the likely means by which life most probably developed. Its hypocrisy. The fact is that you scream foul at creationists as being "unscientific" or "irrational" and yet the textbooks are allowed to teach the same unscientific hypotheses without challenge because naturalism has been deemed "science." It is not. A naturalistic explanation can be even MORE irrational and unscientific as an explanation based in intelligence. If you see a crime scene and a dead body with 5 bullet wounds in the chest, it is not more "scientific" to try to find a way that the event happened by mere chance.
My argument is not so much that this is your claim (I think I have understood your position is that God created life). It's actually why im a bit perplexed you have been arguing with me about it. My argument is that darwinists are guilty of the same bold claims without the backing of science....and these claims are published in biology textbooks for mass consumption. A creationist is ridiculed for believing in a world-wide flood because they might not have all the answers for the physics behind it, yet a darwinist can write in a textbook that life arose from chance connections of non-living bases in a mud-puddle billions of years ago without answers to the science to back it. You took the role of defending abiogenesis taught in textbooks...which assumes this is how it happened as if it were inevitable given the right environment and enough time. In sum, the textbooks teach it and you were defending the teaching in the textbooks....make sense?
Yes, trials do relate to probability, to a degree. However, the point behind the work of the mathematicians and biologists I have cited argues that the more we have discovered about the cell reveals that the chances of such things forming by the above cited scenarios are so small, that history and space does not allow for even close to enough possible trials to make up for the overwhelming odds. It would be like me asking you to win the lottery 20x in a row. The odds at such a thought are so proposterous that even giving you 100 lifetimes and a lottery ticket for every drawing every day in which to accomplish such a feat is meaningless compared to the ridiculous probability such an event would EVER occur. At some point, someone just has to say, "You know, we can add a 100 billion years of trying every single day....but this just would never happen, no matter how many times you try." That is what these researchers and mathematicians have argued. Its not even that most biologists dont recognize how impossible such an event would be....its just that because intelligent design is not an option, they default to random chance. My view is NEITHER should be taught because NEITHER is science.
I dont doubt that. Yet it is taught in biology textbooks as arising due to chance. I think that is wrong and unfair. Creationists are shouted down for proposing views based on faith, but Darwinists are allowed free reign to teach such things about the origin of life without reservation in the public schools. Thus, my argument all along has been the hypocrisy of this and really has nothing to do with your personal views on the matter. You just chose to side with the textbooks...which again, seems curious since you dont seem to believe what they teach on this subject.
I am not intending to make you angry. I am not referring specifically to any comment you have made in this particular discussion. I am referring to past discussions where they usually seem to end with you discounting something I quote from Behe, Meyer, or others and write them off as "documented liars" or something to that effect. At that point, it becomes and issue of defending integrity of individuals rather than dealing with the content of their arguments. I dont feel the need, nor do I have the desire to get into a discussion over each individual's integrity that I cite. So, I am not lying. I am referring to the dozens of conversations we have had in the past and am simply anticipating that will be the final direction of this discussion. Although, I am hopeful that will not be the case.
Oh come now, RJ. You were demanding science and mathematics and when I start providing information for you to review you came back with this statement:
It seemed evident to me that once again you were going to start dismissing everything with claims that I am ignorant and my information is "copied from [my] creationists sources."
That just seems like a cop out to me.
Wormwood
Chaps
Yes. I was busy. Like I said, if the discussion involves meaningful content and not just dismissals and accusations, I am willing to stay involved. I assure you I am not running from anything.
- Status
Similar threads
