The more I see things like this, the more it seems evolutionists need to ante up, by giving concrete step-by-step examples of how to build something like this through transcription errors, etc.
Is that the argument from personal incredulity that I see?
It seems to you that as you understand more about the natural world that it seems like those who deny god’s direct intervention must prove. That is merely a matter of perception. The more I understand about the natural world the more it seems clear to me that complex life is built on a whole series of very specific (and sometimes weird and terribly inefficient) relationships between seemingly-unlike biological structures, which lends perfectly to evolutionary theory.
Is that the argument from personal incredulity that I see?
Some. That video induced a downright visceral reaction.
But
For the degreed people out there, asking the same questions, and for the benefit of everyone in general, it's time to start modeling precisely how these systems evolved. "Similar" might have been fine 30, 50, or 125 years ago, but with the technology we have now, it needs to start happening.
The thing is that a step by step mechanism for it's development is supported by the fact that most, if not all, of the constituents of the inflammation pathway, let alone the entire remainder of the human body, have nearly exact duplicates in monocellular yeast.
Sure, but the explanation needs to be more than 'they're similar' or ' they share a number of the same sorts of components.' The more we learn how intricate and interrelated these sorts of mechanisms are, the more the odds will stack against and the evolution [sans ID] community. Something -- some simple evolutionary path creating a new structure with new information -- needs to be demonstrated explicitly.
For the degreed people out there, asking the same questions, and for the benefit of everyone in general, it's time to start modeling precisely how these systems evolved. "Similar" might have been fine 30, 50, or 125 years ago, but with the technology we have now, it needs to start happening.
What do you mean “with the technology we have now”. What hurdles to “precise” modeling existing 30 years ago that no longer exist? Evolutionary models have been presented for biological processes for decades and it continues to occur. Is there anything specific you are looking for?
This is nothing more than you setting an unnecessarily high bar just so you can feel secure in a predetermined outcome.
And while all this happens, can we get any kind of proof for ID/creationism?
Sure, but the explanation needs to be more than 'they're similar' or ' they share a number of the same sorts of components.' The more we learn how intricate and interrelated these sorts of mechanisms are, the more the odds will stack against and the evolution [sans ID] community. Something -- some simple evolutionary path creating a new structure with new information -- needs to be demonstrated explicitly.
We are talking about more than just shared components. We are talking about structural similarities. And by structural similarities we mean down to the atomic level, and yet they have remarkably diverse functions in each organism.
And you are on the wrong track again. What does information mean to you?
We are talking about more than just shared components. We are talking about structural similarities. And by structural similarities we mean down to the atomic level, and yet they have remarkably different functions in each organism.
Yes, but 'similar' just means that, similar. You still can't break or pull off one piece and still have it function advantageously. (whether it's in yeast or in the body)
For instance: take that apparatus in the animation, and using backwards induction make something advantageous out of it. Do that step-by-step, keeping it's use in context, etc., mutation by mutation -- no jumps -- always keeping it advantageous to the host.
That's something we just haven't seen demonstrated. It might be possible, but it might not.
You still can't break or pull off one piece and still have it function advantageously.
Perhaps, but what does that have to do with evolutionary theory? What evolutionary model involves “pull(ing) off one piece”?
Quote:
For instance: take that apparatus in the animation, and using backwards induction make something advantageous out of it. Do that step-by-step, keeping it's use in context, etc., mutation by mutation -- no jumps -- always keeping it advantageous to the host.
Mutation-by-mutation? What mutations specifically could not have worked? At one point you say science cannot explain the mutation process by showing models and in the very next moment you claim to know enough about all potential models to know that they cannot work?
Also, “keeping its use in context”? What does this even mean?
Your arguments are nothing more than "I don't know exactly how it worked so it obviously didn't."
Perhaps, but what does that have to do with evolutionary theory? What evolutionary model involves “pull(ing) off one piece”?
Mutation-by-mutation? What mutations specifically could not have worked? At one point you say science cannot explain the mutation process by showing models and in the very next moment you claim to know enough about all potential models to know that they cannot work?
Also, “keeping its use in context”? What does this even mean?
Your arguments are nothing more than "I don't know exactly how it worked so it obviously didn't."
Basically, and In short: "The Devil is in the details." If we can model newkeewlar detonations on a computer, we ought to be able to do something of the kind with this isssue.
But I've honked BRusell and addabox, and since we can't have that...
If we can model newkeewlar detonations on a computer, we ought to be able to do something of the kind with this isssue.
1) We can, and do, model evolutionary processes all the time.
2) Your conditional statement makes absolutely no sense at all, absent any rationale about how the modeling of evolutionary process is anything-at-all like the modeling of nuclear detonations.
Yes, but 'similar' just means that, similar. You still can't break or pull off one piece and still have it function advantageously. (whether it's in yeast or in the body)
For instance: take that apparatus in the animation, and using backwards induction make something advantageous out of it. Do that step-by-step, keeping it's use in context, etc., mutation by mutation -- no jumps -- always keeping it advantageous to the host.
That's something we just haven't seen demonstrated. It might be possible, but it might not.
dmz...
You have always missed the point that all biological systems are redundant in function.
Think about how many diseases would result if the human body was so fragile that one mutation (which do occur, regularly) could take out an entire pathway.
The fewer the individual and community redundancies the harder it is for a mutant to survive, and the more likely it's progeny will die off. This is the core point of evolution and it is obvious.
I'm jumping in just hoping someone can satisfy my own curiosity. The whole point of the thread is, as I see it, basically life from non-life. Is there anything out there we can see, read, or play with that demonstrates how this occurs. I'm not asking for something capable of turning a skeptic into an advocate. I'm just asking for a paper about a mathematical model run on a computer, a program that demonstrates it in a simplified manner, pretty much anything that demonstrates the process of moving from non-life to life.
I don't even want to argue the labels, if the parties who created the study declare at X number of amino acids, or whatever criteria they are using, we believe this item would become self-sustaining and self-replicating, I'll gladly use their definition. I don't want arguments about what satisfies the criteria and if it is good enough. Just please post links or whatever else you think demonstrates the non-life to life, however vague the labels, process.
If you're just looking for information, Nick, just do a search on "primordial soup" or "biogenesis," or look in wikipedia for those things, and you'll find plenty.
I understand the concepts. I'm talking about application.
For example from the Wikipedia entry for biogenesis...
Quote:
Human attempts to create life
Charles Darwin in a letter to J.D. Hooker of February 1st 1871, made the suggestion that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Thus, it is the presence of life itself which prevents "spontaneous generation" from occurring on Earth today.
A number of efforts have been made to bring life from non-life, but there has been little success. J. B. Burke attempted to produce small living cells from inorganic matter by means of radium were unsuccessful; the radiobes produced were merely bursting gas bubbles of microscopic size. Pflüger produced cyanic acid, which he compared to half-living molecules, but it was merely a dead chemical compound. The Russian Scientist Alexander I Oparin suggested that we need to understand that the conditions on Earth at the time of the origin of life must have been very different from how they are today. The Miller-Urey experiment confirmed Oparin's hypothesis by producing some of the organic components of life, from an atmosphere of methane, ammonia and water vapour. The most basic amino acids were formed in Miller's test tube but the atmosphere required to make them killed them soon after.
In 2002, scientists succeeded in constructing an artificial and "functioning" (able to infect and kill mice) Polio virus. Other viruses have since been synthesized. These experiments do not qualify as true examples of abiogenesis, since viruses do not meet the standard biological criteria for life. Primarily, they do not respond to stimuli, they are ataxic, they lack the ability or the mechanics to grow or reproduce on their own, and they do not possess cells.
Still, proponents of the idea of abiogenesis cite these results in support of their position, stating that both "non-living" viruses and "living" bacteria are solely "molecular machines" of different complexity. Many of them expect scientists to be able to synthesize the latter when the necessary technology has advanced to a sufficient level, thus proving the possibility of abiogenesis. Additionally, some point to lesser-known and controversial experiments such as those performed by Andrew Crosse as examples of abiogenesis.
Critics of abiogenesis point out that, thus far, life has not been observed to be created without outside intelligence forcing environmental conditions necessary for life, so that abiogenesis seems unlikely to have occurred.
Well a skeptic could note that life didn't occur. However if someone used a computer model to simulate that experiment for a few billion or trillion years across billions of possible instances, and it came up with someone that they would consider to be primitive life, even if they don't meet the definition, I'd still be interested in reading or seeing the results.
In the comments on You Tube somebody noticed that the peanut butter's safety seal had been partially opened....... presumably the makers thought it prudent to check before they rolled tape, just in case a hideous creature was waiting to spring out when he opened the jar.
"So if I open this jar of peanut butter, I should, occasionally, find new life. But when I do open the jar, I AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH MY EYES MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!!!"
Makes "Bananas, proof of God's plan" and "Nature had it first" look like episodes of Cosmos.
I don't intent this as a slap at I.D. folk, because it is so thoroughly confused on pretty much everything that I don't think anybody would want to defend it.
I am sort of mystified by how completely off the rails the people who made this must be and how they managed to not know anything, whatsoever, about biology, primordial conditions, what evolution even claims to be about, or modern product packaging and still felt motivated to make a video about those very topics.
If it wasn't for real it would be one of the great parodies of our age. Unless it is. Is it?
Edit: you have to love the terribly adult sounding lady at the beginning who appears to be hanging out in a courtroom, which probably means she's a lawyer or smart or something.
I saw this a few days ago.
In order for such a reaction to be spontaneous, you would have to have a net positive entropy. The entropy is not measured in living organisms because they are so complex and the entropy would be so high. Provided a sufficient amount of energy in the surroundings, such a reaction could occur. The thing is though -- such situations rarely occur -- why peanut butter does not evolve. Not to mention that peanut butter is not living -- it is dead. Evolution in living organisms is something entirely different: selection of the fittest.
Comments
The more I see things like this, the more it seems evolutionists need to ante up, by giving concrete step-by-step examples of how to build something like this through transcription errors, etc.
Is that the argument from personal incredulity that I see?
It seems to you that as you understand more about the natural world that it seems like those who deny god’s direct intervention must prove. That is merely a matter of perception. The more I understand about the natural world the more it seems clear to me that complex life is built on a whole series of very specific (and sometimes weird and terribly inefficient) relationships between seemingly-unlike biological structures, which lends perfectly to evolutionary theory.
dmz:
Is that the argument from personal incredulity that I see?
Some. That video induced a downright visceral reaction.
But
For the degreed people out there, asking the same questions, and for the benefit of everyone in general, it's time to start modeling precisely how these systems evolved. "Similar" might have been fine 30, 50, or 125 years ago, but with the technology we have now, it needs to start happening.
The thing is that a step by step mechanism for it's development is supported by the fact that most, if not all, of the constituents of the inflammation pathway, let alone the entire remainder of the human body, have nearly exact duplicates in monocellular yeast.
Sure, but the explanation needs to be more than 'they're similar' or ' they share a number of the same sorts of components.' The more we learn how intricate and interrelated these sorts of mechanisms are, the more the odds will stack against and the evolution [sans ID] community. Something -- some simple evolutionary path creating a new structure with new information -- needs to be demonstrated explicitly.
For the degreed people out there, asking the same questions, and for the benefit of everyone in general, it's time to start modeling precisely how these systems evolved. "Similar" might have been fine 30, 50, or 125 years ago, but with the technology we have now, it needs to start happening.
What do you mean “with the technology we have now”. What hurdles to “precise” modeling existing 30 years ago that no longer exist? Evolutionary models have been presented for biological processes for decades and it continues to occur. Is there anything specific you are looking for?
This is nothing more than you setting an unnecessarily high bar just so you can feel secure in a predetermined outcome.
And while all this happens, can we get any kind of proof for ID/creationism?
Sure, but the explanation needs to be more than 'they're similar' or ' they share a number of the same sorts of components.' The more we learn how intricate and interrelated these sorts of mechanisms are, the more the odds will stack against and the evolution [sans ID] community. Something -- some simple evolutionary path creating a new structure with new information -- needs to be demonstrated explicitly.
We are talking about more than just shared components. We are talking about structural similarities. And by structural similarities we mean down to the atomic level, and yet they have remarkably diverse functions in each organism.
And you are on the wrong track again. What does information mean to you?
We are talking about more than just shared components. We are talking about structural similarities. And by structural similarities we mean down to the atomic level, and yet they have remarkably different functions in each organism.
Yes, but 'similar' just means that, similar. You still can't break or pull off one piece and still have it function advantageously. (whether it's in yeast or in the body)
For instance: take that apparatus in the animation, and using backwards induction make something advantageous out of it. Do that step-by-step, keeping it's use in context, etc., mutation by mutation -- no jumps -- always keeping it advantageous to the host.
That's something we just haven't seen demonstrated. It might be possible, but it might not.
Jeezus. How someone could even start going on about creationism in a thread with that video, I don't know.
I know. I thought it would be like an inoculation and we could just marvel.
You still can't break or pull off one piece and still have it function advantageously.
Perhaps, but what does that have to do with evolutionary theory? What evolutionary model involves “pull(ing) off one piece”?
For instance: take that apparatus in the animation, and using backwards induction make something advantageous out of it. Do that step-by-step, keeping it's use in context, etc., mutation by mutation -- no jumps -- always keeping it advantageous to the host.
Mutation-by-mutation? What mutations specifically could not have worked? At one point you say science cannot explain the mutation process by showing models and in the very next moment you claim to know enough about all potential models to know that they cannot work?
Also, “keeping its use in context”? What does this even mean?
Your arguments are nothing more than "I don't know exactly how it worked so it obviously didn't."
dmz:
Perhaps, but what does that have to do with evolutionary theory? What evolutionary model involves “pull(ing) off one piece”?
Mutation-by-mutation? What mutations specifically could not have worked? At one point you say science cannot explain the mutation process by showing models and in the very next moment you claim to know enough about all potential models to know that they cannot work?
Also, “keeping its use in context”? What does this even mean?
Your arguments are nothing more than "I don't know exactly how it worked so it obviously didn't."
Basically, and In short: "The Devil is in the details." If we can model newkeewlar detonations on a computer, we ought to be able to do something of the kind with this isssue.
But I've honked BRusell and addabox, and since we can't have that...
I'll shut up.
If we can model newkeewlar detonations on a computer, we ought to be able to do something of the kind with this isssue.
1) We can, and do, model evolutionary processes all the time.
2) Your conditional statement makes absolutely no sense at all, absent any rationale about how the modeling of evolutionary process is anything-at-all like the modeling of nuclear detonations.
Yes, but 'similar' just means that, similar. You still can't break or pull off one piece and still have it function advantageously. (whether it's in yeast or in the body)
For instance: take that apparatus in the animation, and using backwards induction make something advantageous out of it. Do that step-by-step, keeping it's use in context, etc., mutation by mutation -- no jumps -- always keeping it advantageous to the host.
That's something we just haven't seen demonstrated. It might be possible, but it might not.
dmz...
You have always missed the point that all biological systems are redundant in function.
Think about how many diseases would result if the human body was so fragile that one mutation (which do occur, regularly) could take out an entire pathway.
The fewer the individual and community redundancies the harder it is for a mutant to survive, and the more likely it's progeny will die off. This is the core point of evolution and it is obvious.
I don't even want to argue the labels, if the parties who created the study declare at X number of amino acids, or whatever criteria they are using, we believe this item would become self-sustaining and self-replicating, I'll gladly use their definition. I don't want arguments about what satisfies the criteria and if it is good enough. Just please post links or whatever else you think demonstrates the non-life to life, however vague the labels, process.
Thanks,
Nick
For example from the Wikipedia entry for biogenesis...
Human attempts to create life
Charles Darwin in a letter to J.D. Hooker of February 1st 1871, made the suggestion that life may have begun in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, lights, heat, electricity, etc. present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." Thus, it is the presence of life itself which prevents "spontaneous generation" from occurring on Earth today.
A number of efforts have been made to bring life from non-life, but there has been little success. J. B. Burke attempted to produce small living cells from inorganic matter by means of radium were unsuccessful; the radiobes produced were merely bursting gas bubbles of microscopic size. Pflüger produced cyanic acid, which he compared to half-living molecules, but it was merely a dead chemical compound. The Russian Scientist Alexander I Oparin suggested that we need to understand that the conditions on Earth at the time of the origin of life must have been very different from how they are today. The Miller-Urey experiment confirmed Oparin's hypothesis by producing some of the organic components of life, from an atmosphere of methane, ammonia and water vapour. The most basic amino acids were formed in Miller's test tube but the atmosphere required to make them killed them soon after.
In 2002, scientists succeeded in constructing an artificial and "functioning" (able to infect and kill mice) Polio virus. Other viruses have since been synthesized. These experiments do not qualify as true examples of abiogenesis, since viruses do not meet the standard biological criteria for life. Primarily, they do not respond to stimuli, they are ataxic, they lack the ability or the mechanics to grow or reproduce on their own, and they do not possess cells.
Still, proponents of the idea of abiogenesis cite these results in support of their position, stating that both "non-living" viruses and "living" bacteria are solely "molecular machines" of different complexity. Many of them expect scientists to be able to synthesize the latter when the necessary technology has advanced to a sufficient level, thus proving the possibility of abiogenesis. Additionally, some point to lesser-known and controversial experiments such as those performed by Andrew Crosse as examples of abiogenesis.
Critics of abiogenesis point out that, thus far, life has not been observed to be created without outside intelligence forcing environmental conditions necessary for life, so that abiogenesis seems unlikely to have occurred.
Well a skeptic could note that life didn't occur. However if someone used a computer model to simulate that experiment for a few billion or trillion years across billions of possible instances, and it came up with someone that they would consider to be primitive life, even if they don't meet the definition, I'd still be interested in reading or seeing the results.
Nick
Peanuts are living organisms.
Peanut butter also contains a myriad of bacteria and other organisms suited forconsumption by higher organisms.
Peanut brain is what is being demonstrated here.
Sweet spaghetti monster, you're not actually going to bat for this thing, are you?
DON''T MOCK THE SPAGHETTI MONSTER!!!!!!
V/R,
ARIES 1B
Praetorian Pasta Guard
No one's ever seen life in a peanut butter jar because everyone is looking with insufficient magnification.
To paraphrase an AI signature from The Old Days, " I, for one, welcome our new peanut butter overlords."
V/R,
Aries 1B
"So if I open this jar of peanut butter, I should, occasionally, find new life. But when I do open the jar, I AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH MY EYES MY EYES MY EYES!!!!!!!"
Here.
Makes "Bananas, proof of God's plan" and "Nature had it first" look like episodes of Cosmos.
I don't intent this as a slap at I.D. folk, because it is so thoroughly confused on pretty much everything that I don't think anybody would want to defend it.
I am sort of mystified by how completely off the rails the people who made this must be and how they managed to not know anything, whatsoever, about biology, primordial conditions, what evolution even claims to be about, or modern product packaging and still felt motivated to make a video about those very topics.
If it wasn't for real it would be one of the great parodies of our age. Unless it is. Is it?
Edit: you have to love the terribly adult sounding lady at the beginning who appears to be hanging out in a courtroom, which probably means she's a lawyer or smart or something.
I saw this a few days ago.
In order for such a reaction to be spontaneous, you would have to have a net positive entropy. The entropy is not measured in living organisms because they are so complex and the entropy would be so high. Provided a sufficient amount of energy in the surroundings, such a reaction could occur. The thing is though -- such situations rarely occur -- why peanut butter does not evolve. Not to mention that peanut butter is not living -- it is dead. Evolution in living organisms is something entirely different: selection of the fittest.