Origins: The Evidence

JDliberal · Aug 27, 2017

usfan said: ↑

ummm.. because it doesn't work? It does not do as you believe. There is NO EVIDENCE of selection driven mutations 'creating' new traits, adding chromosome pairs, changing the structure of the genome, or other fantastic claims of increasing complexity.

It is a plausible explanation, but without observational, repeatable tests, it remains conjecture.
Click to expand...

I have posted multiple studies in other threads. All you said was no it wasn't the type of changes you were talking about. When I asked you to clarify, you said I was going off topic.

Still waiting for a refutation of this for over a year:

http://m.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899

Derideo_Te · Aug 28, 2017

One Mind said: ↑

I think it is blindly short-sighted to state special creation is not going anywhere. For this contains one helluva assumption. And that assumption is, matter by accident, chance, out of randomness, formed itself into a self replicating molecule, and then by the same means, with nothing else involved, turned into a single cell organism, that then clumped together to form some like a primitive amoeba, with organelles, each with a function necessary for that lifeform to be viable, life getting more complex to counteract entropy, eventually lead up to us. Now, this scheme, purely materialistic, is what is accepted today, without the evidence to back it up. Or rather, not near enough evidence to back it up.

I do not think pure materialistic science will ever solve what looks to be a mystery. For the materialism is just not enough, being based, by nothing more than faith, that out of randomness, disorder, that chance and time somehow created by a process, a self replicating molecule. Materialism is dependent upon this, yet these scientists have no clue as to how it happened, the mechanics from chance, out of randomness. One of the discoverers of the double helix before he died, either Watson or crick, had decided given the unbelievable complexity of dna, concluded that it did not get created on earth. That it had to have happened on another planet, with more time involved, than was available on earth.

IMO, what is missing, because materialism cannot allow it, is the existence of information, utilized by matter in order to bring order out of randomness. More and more physicists today think that information at the quantum level is essential in order for an atom to exist in the first place. Basically it is energy and information that is fundamental, and this is anti materialism, for materialism is just wrong, when trying to understand the quantum level of reality. I think that there will be a change in paradigm, for logic will demand it, and when it comes to life, without information life would never arise, nor would evolution of that life ever be possible.

Yet when one speaks of these thousands of physicists who think information is key, with many of them thinking that the universe is to use a metaphor, a virtual reality, created by energy and information, dependent upon data, for its existence, you get cries of WOO from the materialists. I once stated here on this forum that there was substantial evidence that conscious intent can affect matter outside the brain, there were cries of WOO WOO. With some even insisting there was absolutely no evidence to support this. For this fact, backed by experimental evidence was totally unknown to some people here who think they know all of the pertinent scientific facts, when indeed they were just ignorant of their own ignorance which is common today given how specialized and isolated the specialists are from other specialists with insufficient funding to bring together these specialists to piece the puzzle together, perhaps even expanding the horizons.

So, if consciousness, conscious intent of the brain, can affect matter which is outside the brain, which materialism would think impossible, given they believe that the brain creates consciousness, and all of this is inside the skull, separated from other matter, the evidence of consciousness affecting something outside itself negates materialism, shows it to be wrong. And if materialism can then be honestly questioned, that opens up the door for science to look outside of a materialistic paradigm. It is crack in the armor of materialism, and as time passes, new evidence will show just how limited materialism is, when used exclusively and dogmatically to attempt to understand and explain our reality.

So it seems the materialists here know absolutely nothing of the Princeton College of Engineering conducting thousands of experiments over years, producing the same results and evidence to support the fact that the brain, conscious intent can affect things like a random number generator, and give you more zeros than ones. And at a relative significant percentage greater than chance. Producing significant evidence that something materialistic science has said was just impossible. And yet to this day, so many scientists are totally ignorant of the results of the experiments at Princeton. Not to mention the neophytes here. I remember one guy on this forum would not believe, so strong was his faith in materialistic based science. Even when given the link to the page at Princeton. And this is something we continue to see from not only our armchair scientists but real men of science as well. This is something common, the ignorance of our own ignorance which we illustrate with such human arrogance.

So for the ignorant, and so they will not be ignorant on this anymore......
http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/

The materialistic paradigm will not stand, and it will change some of the mechanics of evolution, as well as the creation of the self replicating molecule. For I have little doubt that the existence and role of information in our reality will be a paradigm changing event, but of course the emotion driven aspect of atheistic materialism, which must not be underestimated will have a difficult time in acceptance. For it does such damage to the basis of materialism/atheism, and human beings are hardly driven by pure rationality, logic and reason. Not even scientists in some of these areas.

But this information dependent virtual reality will in no way validate the existence of these gods that man has created, which are too flawed like human beings to be considered by intelligent people. Indeed the qualities given to these gods, even the Abrahamic god, should be an insult to a proper force which exists outside of this universe, but from where the essential information that the universe depends on is derived, the source. Since such a thing is outside how can we know its qualities, or imagine what it might be like, other than the source for information? But yet the list of scientists who think this may very well be our reality is growing. Denial by the materialists does not change what the other scientists are beginning to see as completely logical and reasonable. And they are making these assertions based upon growing evidence, and a different interpretation than the more limited materialists.
Click to expand...

This scientific paper addresses your concerns and demonstrates how monomers can become self replicating polymers with encoded information. I have included the link to the original paper for those who want the specific details of what scientists now know.

http://www.nanowerk.com/nanotechnology-news/newsid=40896.php

New theoretical model explains the origins of self-replicating molecules (w/video)

(Nanowerk News) Nearly four billion years ago, the earliest precursors of life on Earth emerged. First small, simple molecules, or monomers, banded together to form larger, more complex molecules, or polymers. Then those polymers developed a mechanism that allowed them to self-replicate and pass their structure on to future generations.We wouldn't be here today if molecules had not made that fateful transition to self-replication. Yet despite the fact that biochemists have spent decades searching for the specific chemical process that can explain how simple molecules could make this leap, we still don't really understand how it happened.Now Sergei Maslov, a computational biologist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory and adjunct professor at Stony Brook University, and Alexei Tkachenko, a scientist at Brookhaven's Center for Functional Nanomaterials (CFN), have taken a different, more conceptual approach. They've developed a model that explains how monomers could very rapidly make the jump to more complex polymers. And what their model points to could have intriguing implications for CFN's work in engineering artificial self-assembly at the nanoscale. Their work is published in the July 28, 2015 issue of The Journal of Chemical Physics ("Spontaneous emergence of autocatalytic information-coding polymers").To understand their work, let's consider the most famous organic polymer, and the carrier of life's genetic code: DNA. This polymer is composed of long chains of specific monomers called nucleotides, of which the four kinds are adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine (A, T, G, C). In a DNA double helix, each specific nucleotide pairs with another: A with T, and G with C. Because of this complementary pairing, it would be possible to put a complete piece of DNA back together even if just one of the two strands was intact.While DNA has become the molecule of choice for encoding biological information, its close cousin RNA likely played this role at the dawn of life. This is known as the RNA world hypothesis, and it's the scenario that Maslov and Tkachenko considered in their work.The single complete RNA strand is called a template strand, and the use of a template to piece together monomer fragments is what is known as template-assisted ligation. This concept is at the crux of their work. They asked whether that piecing together of complementary monomer chains into more complex polymers could occur not as the healing of a broken polymer, but rather as the formation of something new."Suppose we don't have any polymers at all, and we start with just monomers in a test tube," explained Tkachenko. "Will that mixture ever find its way to make those polymers? The answer is rather remarkable: Yes, it will! You would think there is some chicken-and-egg problem—that, in order to make polymers, you already need polymers there to provide the template for their formation. Turns out that you don't really.

"Instilling memory

Maslov and Tkachenko's model imagines some kind of regular cycle in which conditions change in a predictable fashion—say, the transition between night and day. Imagine a world in which complex polymers break apart during the day, then repair themselves at night. The presence of a template strand means that the polymer reassembles itself precisely as it was the night before. That self-replication process means the polymer can transmit information about itself from one generation to the next. That ability to pass information along is a fundamental property of life.

A schematic drawing of template-assisted ligation, shown in this model to give rise to autocatalytic systems."The way our system replicates from one day cycle to the next is that it preserves a memory of what was there," said Maslov. "It's relatively easy to make lots of long polymers, but they will have no memory. The template provides the memory. Right now, we are solving the problem of how to get long polymer chains capable of memory transmission from one unit to another to select a small subset of polymers out of an astronomically large number of solutions."According to Maslov and Tkachenko's model, a molecular system only needs a very tiny percentage of more complex molecules—even just dimers, or pairs of identical molecules joined together—to start merging into the longer chains that will eventually become self-replicating polymers. This neatly sidesteps one of the most vexing puzzles of the origins of life: Self-replicating chains likely need to be very specific sequences of at least 100 paired monomers, yet the odds of 100 such pairs randomly assembling themselves in just the right order is practically zero."If conditions are right, there is what we call a first-order transition, where you go from this soup of completely dispersed monomers to this new solution where you have these long chains appearing," said Tkachenko. "And we now have this mechanism for the emergence of these polymers that can potentially carry information and transmit it downstream. Once this threshold is passed, we expect monomers to be able to form polymers, taking us from the primordial soup to a primordial soufflé."While the model's concept of template-assisted ligation does describe how DNA—as well as RNA—repairs itself, Maslov and Tkachenko's work doesn't require that either of those was the specific polymer for the origin of life."Our model could also describe a proto-RNA molecule. It could be something completely different," Maslov said.

Order from disorder

The fact that Maslov and Tkachenko's model doesn't require the presence of a specific molecule speaks to their more theoretical approach."It's a different mentality from what a biochemist would do," said Tkachenko. "A biochemist would be fixated on specific molecules. We, being ignorant physicists, tried to work our way from a general conceptual point of view, as there's a fundamental problem."

Animation showing template-assisted ligation for creating self-replicating polymers.That fundamental problem is the second law of thermodynamics, which states that systems tend toward increasing disorder and lack of organization. The formation of long polymer chains from monomers is the precise opposite of that."How do you start with the regular laws of physics and get to these laws of biology which makes things run backward, which make things more complex, rather than less complex?" Tkachenko queried. "That's exactly the jump that we want to understand."

Applications in nanoscience

The work is an outgrowth of efforts at the Center for Functional Nanomaterials, a DOE Office of Science User Facility, to use DNA and other biomolecules to direct the self-assembly of nanoparticles into large, ordered arrays. While CFN doesn't typically focus on these kinds of primordial biological questions, Maslov and Tkachenko's modeling work could help CFN scientists engaged in cutting-edge nanoscience research to engineer even larger and more complex assemblies using nanostructured building blocks."There is a huge interest in making engineered self-assembled structures, so we were essentially thinking about two problems at once," said Tkachenko. "One is relevant to biologists, and second asks whether we can engineer a nanosystem that will do what our model does."The next step will be to determine whether template-aided ligation can allow polymers to begin undergoing the evolutionary changes that characterize life as we know it. While this first round of research involved relatively modest computational resources, that next phase will require far more involved models and simulations.Maslov and Tkachenko's work has solved the problem of how long polymer chains capable of information transmission from one generation to the next could emerge from the world of simple monomers. Now they are turning their attention to how such a system could naturally narrow itself down from exponentially many polymers to only a select few with desirable sequences."What we needed to show here was that this template-based ligation does result in a set of polymer chains, starting just from monomers," said Tkachenko. "So the next question we will be asking is whether, because of this template-based merger, we will be able to see specific sequences that will be more 'fit' than others. So this work sets the stage for the shift to the Darwinian phase."

Read more: New theoretical model explains the origins of self-replicating molecules (w/video)
Click to expand...

http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4922545

Derideo_Te · Aug 28, 2017

One Mind said: ↑

I doubt any theory that stands on the idea that out of randomness pure chance is responsible for a self replicating molecule which had the ability, by pure chance to evolve over time into you is any more likely than us living in a virtual reality, originating from something outside this universe, which supplies the information that gives us the universe and all that it contains. The latter is more sensible and logical than depending upon chance acting upon randomness given the tremendous complexity involved. And there was not just one act of chance out of randomness that must be involved, but a huge number of these events of chance. So, looks less likely. So you need lots of faith, hardly different than the religious. Faith is faith, and there is not one shred of experimental evidence that chance would ever give us a self replicating molecule. It is just a belief.
Click to expand...

Except that there is experimental evidence that does show how random chance does enable self replicating molecules to occur. The challenge is that what we have now is complex based upon billions of years of evolution. The original self replicating molecules were much simpler but it appears as though that step has now been achieved. The next step is to go from simple self replicating molecules to the more complex RNA and DNA based molecules. Given what has been demonstrated already the answer is starting to emerge.

https://www.seeker.com/scientists-build-self-replicating-molecule-1765465720.html

Scientists Build Self-Replicating Molecule
Researchers have built a self-replicating molecule out of artificial DNA.

Living things self-replicate, but artificial materials generally don't. At least not until now.

New York University researchers led by Paul Chaikin have found a way to use synthetic DNA to make molecules that reproduce themselves. The technique gives scientists a tool to create different combinations on the DNA that aren't necessarily available in nature. That opens up billions of possibilities for building completely new materials and even molecular machines. Chaikin and his colleaques reported their results in this week's journal Nature.
Click to expand...

Combine this with the work demonstrating simple monomers former polymers with information and the process is much closer to being understood from both ends of the spectrum.

https://publishing.aip.org/publishi...-may-explain-emergence-self-replication-early

Cosmo · Aug 28, 2017

Derideo_Te said: ↑

Except that there is experimental evidence that does show how random chance does enable self replicating molecules to occur. The challenge is that what we have now is complex based upon billions of years of evolution. The original self replicating molecules were much simpler but it appears as though that step has now been achieved. The next step is to go from simple self replicating molecules to the more complex RNA and DNA based molecules. Given what has been demonstrated already the answer is starting to emerge.

https://www.seeker.com/scientists-build-self-replicating-molecule-1765465720.html

Combine this with the work demonstrating simple monomers former polymers with information and the process is much closer to being understood from both ends of the spectrum.

https://publishing.aip.org/publishi...-may-explain-emergence-self-replication-early
Click to expand...

Some creationists argue that DNA, by virtue of the fact that it contains stored information must be the result of intelligence.
They clearly need to ramp-up on information theory if they ever hope to understand how complex systems actually work.

JDliberal · Aug 28, 2017

Cosmo said: ↑

Some creationists argue that DNA, by virtue of the fact that it contains stored information must be the result of intelligence.
They clearly need to ramp-up on information theory if they ever hope to understand how complex systems actually work.
Click to expand...

That seems like an odd claim. Are they trying for another failed teleological argument? First, the watch maker, next the carefully balanced fundamental forces and now information storing?

Derideo_Te · Aug 28, 2017

JDliberal said: ↑

That seems like an odd claim. Are they trying for another failed teleological argument? First, the watch maker, next the carefully balanced fundamental forces and now information storing?
Click to expand...

In essence any concept more complex than a sand based egg timer falls into the "goddidit" category for those who deny science. And there are probably some who believe that "goddidit" when it comes to gravity acting upon the sand in the timer.

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

JDliberal said: ↑

I have posted multiple studies in other threads. All you said was no it wasn't the type of changes you were talking about. When I asked you to clarify, you said I was going off topic.

Still waiting for a refutation of this for over a year:

http://m.pnas.org/content/105/23/7899
Click to expand...

You are just outing yourself as a dishonest debater. I exactly & thoroughly rebutted that post, almost immediately. Care to look back, to verify your faulty memory?

This is the 'e coli gaining the ability to process citrates' study. You posted a link, & basically said, 'see!? This proves evolution!' I went through the study carefully, & examined the findings. Nobody could 'conclude' that 'this proves evolution!!' This is just an adaptation of CERTAIN bacteria in certain conditions. It says more about the unique genetic makeup of e coli, than any sweeping conclusion of universal descendancy.

Weren't the 'evolved!' bacteria, still bacteria? Weren't they still e coli? So where is this 'evidence' of major changes in the genetic structure? Adapting to a condition is NOT macro evolution, it is micro, which is an obvious, repeatable scientific mechanism.

You just tweak your ad hominem, & repeat it. You have not addressed any of my points, & your attempt to vilify me as 'refusing to answer!' is false & a tuquoque fallacy.

You have not presented a premise, for the ToE to examine it, scientifically & logically, but are attempting to smear & discredit a poster with false accusations.

Stop pretending you have 'presented!' all this evidence, & just do it. I'll examine it, you can be sure of that. But your phony outrage, ad hominem, & deflections from the topic are just fallacies, to avoid having to actually make an argument, or produce any valid evidence.

Go ahead.. quote your original post you reference here, & my reply. But you won't, because it would just expose your deceptions & dishonest tactics.

Show me the science, & enough with the fallacies & phony narratives.

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

Derideo_Te said: ↑

Except that there is experimental evidence that does show how random chance does enable self replicating molecules to occur. The challenge is that what we have now is complex based upon billions of years of evolution. The original self replicating molecules were much simpler but it appears as though that step has now been achieved. The next step is to go from simple self replicating molecules to the more complex RNA and DNA based molecules. Given what has been demonstrated already the answer is starting to emerge.

https://www.seeker.com/scientists-build-self-replicating-molecule-1765465720.html

Combine this with the work demonstrating simple monomers former polymers with information and the process is much closer to being understood from both ends of the spectrum.

https://publishing.aip.org/publishi...-may-explain-emergence-self-replication-early
Click to expand...

Shirley, you aren't serious. Did you even read the article, before posting the sensational, tabloid headlines?

Here is one paragraph, early in the article:

A new model published this week in The Journal of Chemical Physics, from AIP Publishing, proposes a potential mechanism by which self-replication could have emerged. It posits that template-assisted ligation, the joining of two polymers by using a third, longer one as a template, could have enabled polymers to become self-replicating.

Now, you did not present this article as 'potential', 'computer model', 'could have' speculation & hypothesis.. no, you slapped the sensational headline,
'Scientists Build Self-Replicating Molecule!'
& hope to fool those who won't or can't examine the claims, scientifically. Unfortunately, this is becoming all too common, mostly in the journalistic community, who generally prefer sensational headlines to verified facts.

I am all for studies of this kind, as they provide the impetus for discovery. But for the uninformed to conclude, 'Scientific Fact!', when the study is just a 'what if' speculative hypothesis, is the height of Anti-Science. It has become propaganda, where illusion & hype are masqueraded as empirical fact, & the only purpose seems to be to deceive the simple minded, & they have been very successful at that.

This was a computer model.. a program where assumptions & speculations could be plugged in without actually having to perform an experiment. That is fine, for preliminary speculations, but if the 'findings!' are ballyhooed as 'Proven Fact!' then the study has become a pawn for propaganda, & has lost all scientific validity.

I realize that most people who post in this forum are not trained, scientifically minded individuals. I know i spend a lot of time emphasizing the parameters of discussion, to try to keep it based on empiricism & Real Science. But i do ask for those posting things like this to take a little time to read the link.. see what is actually being said, instead of just searching google for some sensational headlines.

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

Derideo_Te said: ↑

In essence any concept more complex than a sand based egg timer falls into the "goddidit" category for those who deny science. And there are probably some who believe that "goddidit" when it comes to gravity acting upon the sand in the timer.
Click to expand...

It is a binary choice or possibility. Either,

Goddidit!

Nothindidit!

You can make cutesy smears, to try to marginalize or ridicule the opposing view, but it does not take away the obvious reality of one of these 2 possibilities being the Cause of origins.

Why not present your scientifically based arguments, for or against either model? Why just heckle from the sidelines, pitching propaganda, phony caricatures, & fake science?

RiaRaeb · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

Shirley, you aren't serious. Did you even read the article, before posting the sensational, tabloid headlines?

Here is one paragraph, early in the article:

A new model published this week in The Journal of Chemical Physics, from AIP Publishing, proposes a potential mechanism by which self-replication could have emerged. It posits that template-assisted ligation, the joining of two polymers by using a third, longer one as a template, could have enabled polymers to become self-replicating.

Now, you did not present this article as 'potential', 'computer model', 'could have' speculation & hypothesis.. no, you slapped the sensational headline,
'Scientists Build Self-Replicating Molecule!'
& hope to fool those who won't or can't examine the claims, scientifically. Unfortunately, this is becoming all too common, mostly in the journalistic community, who generally prefer sensational headlines to verified facts.

I am all for studies of this kind, as they provide the impetus for discovery. But for the uninformed to conclude, 'Scientific Fact!', when the study is just a 'what if' speculative hypothesis, is the height of Anti-Science. It has become propaganda, where illusion & hype are masqueraded as empirical fact, & the only purpose seems to be to deceive the simple minded, & they have been very successful at that.

This was a computer model.. a program where assumptions & speculations could be plugged in without actually having to perform an experiment. That is fine, for preliminary speculations, but if the 'findings!' are ballyhooed as 'Proven Fact!' then the study has become a pawn for propaganda, & has lost all scientific validity.

I realize that most people who post in this forum are not trained, scientifically minded individuals. I know i spend a lot of time emphasizing the parameters of discussion, to try to keep it based on empiricism & Real Science. But i do ask for those posting things like this to take a little time to read the link.. see what is actually being said, instead of just searching google for some sensational headlines.
Click to expand...

From the first article which is about self replicating molecules,

In this case, the researchers created two slightly different molecular "tiles," each one made of 10 strands of DNA.

Next, they seeded a solution of with a string of seven tiles. The string catalyzed in the solution and instructed the molecules to form a complementary seven-tile sequence - a duplicate of the original. This "offspring" was then used to create a subsequent duplicate.

Explain the fact you ignored this article, but used the headline to refute the second article.

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

Cosmo said: ↑

Some creationists argue that DNA, by virtue of the fact that it contains stored information must be the result of intelligence.
They clearly need to ramp-up on information theory if they ever hope to understand how complex systems actually work.
Click to expand...

What is your explanation of DNA? HOW did this increasing complexity overcome the built-in limitations of dna, which is a strict blueprint for living things?

Merely asserting it 'happened!' is no more scientific than asserting 'godidit!' Here are the facts:

Highly complex genetic structures exist, as well as simple ones.

There is no mechanism defined or observed to explain a progression of complexity.. the adding of genes, traits, or structural changes in the genome.

Cumulative, structural changes in the genetic structure is a belief. There is no hard science to corroborate this 'theory'.

All living things stay strictly within the parameters of their genetic code. They do not flit about, adding genes, changing structure, or becoming completely different phylogenetic types. They can only vary within the confines of their DNA.

Mutations & time do not provide the evidence for the alleged phenomena of increasing complexity & changes in the genetic structure.

We are a little ahead of ourselves, & are debating the ToE, when nobody has presented a premise for debate. It seems to me this post is an attempt to belittle the ID promoters or defenders, rather than present a valid premise for examination & discussion. I would request that rational, scientific methodology be used here, in this scientific thread, rather than the common assertions & fallacies common in public discourse.

RiaRaeb · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

It is a binary choice or possibility. Either,

Goddidit!

Nothindidit!

You can make cutesy smears, to try to marginalize or ridicule the opposing view, but it does not take away the obvious reality of one of these 2 possibilities being the Cause of origins.

Why not present your scientifically based arguments, for or against either model? Why just heckle from the sidelines, pitching propaganda, phony caricatures, & fake science?
Click to expand...

usfan said: ↑

It is a binary choice or possibility. Either,

Goddidit!

Nothindidit!

You can make cutesy smears, to try to marginalize or ridicule the opposing view, but it does not take away the obvious reality of one of these 2 possibilities being the Cause of origins.

Why not present your scientifically based arguments, for or against either model? Why just heckle from the sidelines, pitching propaganda, phony caricatures, & fake science?
Click to expand...

Can you provide the model for the "goddidit" choice?

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

RiaRaeb said: ↑

From the first article which is about self replicating molecules,

In this case, the researchers created two slightly different molecular "tiles," each one made of 10 strands of DNA.

Next, they seeded a solution of with a string of seven tiles. The string catalyzed in the solution and instructed the molecules to form a complementary seven-tile sequence - a duplicate of the original. This "offspring" was then used to create a subsequent duplicate.

Explain the fact you ignored this article, but used the headline to refute the second article.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article? Why just go for the ad hominem, & accuse me, personally, of something, while you made no attempt at rebuttal of my post?

Do you deny that this is a computer model? They 'created' a program, & defined the parameters, & made the assumptions. This is not a real life experiment of real world genetics. No conclusion could be considered definitive, in a study like this.. certainly not the tabloid headlines.

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

RiaRaeb said: ↑

Can you provide the model for the "goddidit" choice?
Click to expand...

I already have.. in the OP:

I see 2 basic theories/beliefs/opinions about the origin of life, the universe, & the complexity of species:

1. Naturalistic. The theory of evolution is part of this model.
2. Supernaturalistic. Intelligent design, or creationism, is part of this model.

I propose that evidence be give, either for or against either model, & that the claims of each can be examined critically, with logical & scientific analysis. Other models or theories can also be included, such as alien seeding, or any other 'theory' of origins.
Click to expand...

Would you like to take a shot at presenting a premise, then defending it with reason & evidence? We already have enough hecklers on the sidelines.

RiaRaeb · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

Did you read the article? Why just go for the ad hominem, & accuse me, personally, of something, while you made no attempt at rebuttal of my post?

Do you deny that this is a computer model? They 'created' a program, & defined the parameters, & made the assumptions. This is not a real life experiment of real world genetics. No conclusion could be considered definitive, in a study like this.. certainly not the tabloid headlines.
Click to expand...

If you wish to accuse me of ad homineim then report it as the rules of the forum allow I will not respond to your accusations again.

Are you suggesting that the experiment carried out in the first article was a computer program? If so, please provide evidence for that.

RiaRaeb · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

I already have.. in the OP:

Would you like to take a shot at presenting a premise, then defending it with reason & evidence? We already have enough hecklers on the sidelines.
Click to expand...

No, I asked for the supernaturalist model, is there one, can you provide it?

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

https://www.seeker.com/scientists-build-self-replicating-molecule-1765465720.html

The first article posted was from 2010, & is hardly a 'ground breaking proof of evolution!' It was a computer model, nothing more. That is why it remains obscure, only dug out of the interwebs by desperate debaters, going for the sensational headlines, instead of empirical facts.

Here is a quote from the original study, not just the journalistic article ABOUT the study:

Here we report a first development in this direction, using DNA tile motifs that can recognize and bind complementary tiles in a pre-programmed fashion. We first design tile motifs so they form a seven-tile seed sequence; then use the seeds to instruct the formation of a first generation of complementary seven-tile daughter sequences; and finally use the daughters to instruct the formation of seven-tile granddaughter sequences that are identical to the initial seed sequences. Considering that DNA is a functional material that can organize itself and other molecules into useful structures, our findings raise the tantalizing prospect that we may one day be able to realize self-replicating materials with various patterns or useful functions.
Click to expand...

source
Now tell me.. what kind of 'scientist' would read this & make the fantastic claim that the poster did? This is tabloid 'science'.. with no facts to support the conclusion.

Derideo_Te · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

You are just outing yourself as a dishonest debater. I exactly & thoroughly rebutted that post, almost immediately. Care to look back, to verify your faulty memory?

This is the 'e coli gaining the ability to process citrates' study. You posted a link, & basically said, 'see!? This proves evolution!' I went through the study carefully, & examined the findings. Nobody could 'conclude' that 'this proves evolution!!' This is just an adaptation of CERTAIN bacteria in certain conditions. It says more about the unique genetic makeup of e coli, than any sweeping conclusion of universal descendancy.

Weren't the 'evolved!' bacteria, still bacteria? Weren't they still e coli? So where is this 'evidence' of major changes in the genetic structure? Adapting to a condition is NOT macro evolution, it is micro, which is an obvious, repeatable scientific mechanism.

You just tweak your ad hominem, & repeat it. You have not addressed any of my points, & your attempt to vilify me as 'refusing to answer!' is false & a tuquoque fallacy.

You have not presented a premise, for the ToE to examine it, scientifically & logically, but are attempting to smear & discredit a poster with false accusations.

Stop pretending you have 'presented!' all this evidence, & just do it. I'll examine it, you can be sure of that. But your phony outrage, ad hominem, & deflections from the topic are just fallacies, to avoid having to actually make an argument, or produce any valid evidence.

Go ahead.. quote your original post you reference here, & my reply. But you won't, because it would just expose your deceptions & dishonest tactics.

Show me the science, & enough with the fallacies & phony narratives.
Click to expand...

Ironic to say the least!

usfan · Aug 28, 2017

RiaRaeb said: ↑

If you wish to accuse me of ad homineim then report it as the rules of the forum allow I will not respond to your accusations again.

Are you suggesting that the experiment carried out in the first article was a computer program? If so, please provide evidence for that.
Click to expand...

I didn't just 'accuse!' you, you actually used ad hominem instead of rebutting my post.

Explain the fact you ignored this article, but used the headline to refute the second article.
Click to expand...

Instead of addressing the topic, you wished to smear accuse me of 'ignoring!' something. That is ad hominem, & reporting logical fallacies is ridiculous.. the whole forum would be a constant reporting nightmare. I can only point it out, when it is happening, & direct the thread back to reason, evidence, & science.

Derideo_Te · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

Shirley, you aren't serious. Did you even read the article, before posting the sensational, tabloid headlines?

Here is one paragraph, early in the article:

A new model published this week in The Journal of Chemical Physics, from AIP Publishing, proposes a potential mechanism by which self-replication could have emerged. It posits that template-assisted ligation, the joining of two polymers by using a third, longer one as a template, could have enabled polymers to become self-replicating.

Now, you did not present this article as 'potential', 'computer model', 'could have' speculation & hypothesis.. no, you slapped the sensational headline,
'Scientists Build Self-Replicating Molecule!'
& hope to fool those who won't or can't examine the claims, scientifically. Unfortunately, this is becoming all too common, mostly in the journalistic community, who generally prefer sensational headlines to verified facts.

I am all for studies of this kind, as they provide the impetus for discovery. But for the uninformed to conclude, 'Scientific Fact!', when the study is just a 'what if' speculative hypothesis, is the height of Anti-Science. It has become propaganda, where illusion & hype are masqueraded as empirical fact, & the only purpose seems to be to deceive the simple minded, & they have been very successful at that.

This was a computer model.. a program where assumptions & speculations could be plugged in without actually having to perform an experiment. That is fine, for preliminary speculations, but if the 'findings!' are ballyhooed as 'Proven Fact!' then the study has become a pawn for propaganda, & has lost all scientific validity.

I realize that most people who post in this forum are not trained, scientifically minded individuals. I know i spend a lot of time emphasizing the parameters of discussion, to try to keep it based on empiricism & Real Science. But i do ask for those posting things like this to take a little time to read the link.. see what is actually being said, instead of just searching google for some sensational headlines.
Click to expand...

Once again the OP's theist science denial kneejerk appears like clockwork!

Ironic how the OP PRETENDS to be "scientifically literate" and yet is completely unaware that scientists use computer modeling on a regular basis.

Perhaps the OP should try and learn from National Institute of Health papers such as these;

https://www.nibib.nih.gov/science-education/science-topics/computational-modeling

What is computational modeling?

How can computational modeling accelerate discovery?

What are some examples of computational modeling and how it can be used to study complex systems?

How can computational modeling improve medical care and/or biomedical research?

What are NIBIB-funded researchers developing in the area of computational modeling?

What is computational modeling?

Model of platelet structure helps to predict movement patterns of activated platelets. Source: Danny Bluestein, Stony Brook University.

Computational modeling is the use of computers to simulate and study the behavior of complex systems using mathematics, physics and computer science. A computational model contains numerous variables that characterize the system being studied. Simulation is done by adjusting each of these variables alone or in combination and observing how the changes affect the outcomes. The results of model simulations help researchers make predictions about what will happen in the real system that is being studied in response to changing conditions. Modeling can expedite research by allowing scientists to conduct thousands of simulated experiments by computer in order to identify the actual physical experiments that are most likely to help the researcher find the solution to the problem being studied.

A key feature of today’s computational models is that they are able to study a biological system at multiple levels, including molecular processes, cell to cell interactions, and how those interactions result in changes at the tissue and organ level. The ability to study a system at these multiple levels is known as multiscale modeling.

How can computational modeling accelerate discovery?

To gain a better understanding of how computer modeling works, let’s think about baking a cake that has 20 ingredients. If you want to know how each ingredient contributes to the outcome of the cake, one option would be to bake 20 cakes and leave out a different ingredient each time. Such an approach would be extremely time-consuming. Alternatively, you could enter all 20 ingredients into a computer model, explaining to the computer what each ingredient does and how it interacts with other ingredients. You could then run a simulation in which a different ingredient is left out each time. In a matter of seconds, the computer could tell you how each of the 20 cakes would likely turn out if baked in real life.

Let’s say you now want to know how changing the amount of each ingredient will affect the cake. In your computer model, you could adjust the amounts of each of the 20 ingredients any number of times until the outcome of your simulation is a cake that suits your needs (e.g. fluffy, sticky, soft, hard, etc.). In real-life, you would need to bake 190 cakes to find out the results of changing any 2 ingredients; 1,140 cakes to find the results of changing any 3 ingredients; and 4,845 cakes to find the results of changing any 4 ingredients. The power of computational modeling is that it allows scientists and engineers to simulate variations more efficiently by computer, saving time, money, and materials.

What are some examples of computational modeling and how it can be used to study complex systems?
Computational modeling is used to study a wide range of complex systems. Some examples include:

Forecasting the weather. Weather forecasting uses computer models that analyze and make predictions based on numerous atmospheric factors. This is important for many reasons including protecting life, property, and crops, and helping utility companies plan for increases in power demand, especially when extreme climate shifts are expected.

Building better airplanes. Flight simulators re-create aircraft flight using the complex equations that govern how aircraft fly and the reaction of the aircraft to external environmental factors such as turbulence, air density, and precipitation. In addition to being used to train pilots, flight simulators are used for the design of aircraft and research into how aircraft might be affected by different conditions.

Studying earthquakes. Computational modeling is used in the study of earthquakes, with the goal of saving lives, buildings, and other types of infrastructure. Computer simulations model how the construction, composition, and motion of structures, and the surfaces on which they are built, interact to affect what happens during an earthquake.

How can computational modeling improve medical care and/or biomedical research?

Model of clogged arteries identifies areas of wall damage (left) and points of high stress from blood flow (right), which predict atherosclerotic plaque rupture. Source: Dalin Tang, Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

•Researchers are developing models of the mechanics of blood vessels, blood flow, and heart valves. These models can then be used in a number of ways, including optimizing the design of implanted devices such as artificial heart valves and coronary artery stents. Computational models also aid in the creation of decision tools for doctors that can provide guidance for the treatment of cardiovascular disease, based on detailed analysis of specific characteristics of each patient.

•Computer models of the human cornea can help simulate laser eye surgery and refine the technique. They are also used for virtual training of physicians in how to perform the procedure.

•Researchers use computational modeling to help design drugs, early in the development process, that will be the safest for patients. Identifying which drugs are the least likely to have adverse side effects also has the potential to reduce the many years needed to bring a promising candidate drug from the experimental stage to winning approval as a safe and effective medication.

What are NIBIB-funded researchers developing in the area of computational modeling?
Improving healing of chronic wounds. Chronic skin wounds, especially in people suffering from conditions such as diabetes and obesity, are a significant health and economic problem in the U.S. and worldwide. Healing requires recruitment of new skin fibroblasts into the wound region, which is directed by a protein called platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF). Although much is known about the signals that activate PDGF, little is known about how different concentrations of PDGF are distributed throughout the wound site and how this orchestrates the movement of fibroblasts into the wound to promote healing. NIBIB-funded scientists are developing a computer model that incorporates a wealth of experimental data about the signals that activate PDGF. The model will be used to understand and predict the key triggers of the healing process at multiple levels, including self-assembly of contractile proteins, cell migration, and cell to cell interactions to form new tissue. The model will be used to identify, test and refine wound-healing approaches for patients with persistent chronic wounds.

Reducing osteoarthritis following knee surgery. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are a common knee injury. ACL reconstructive surgeries are often successful at improving joint stability, but patients have a high risk for developing early onset osteoarthritis (OA). Researchers are working to understand why OA develops in these patients, and the best treatment strategy to lower the risk. They are creating a new multi-scale computational model to examine the mechanics of walking in terms of muscle, bone, and soft tissues. The model will be used to test key surgical variables affecting cartilage stresses after ACL reconstruction that are believed to increase osteoarthritic changes to the joint, which include graft stiffness, and the angle of ACL attachment to the bones. The model will then examine the influence of surgical procedures on knee mechanics using MRI. The studies aim to identify clinical and surgical protocols that can best reduce the risk for early onset OA following ligament injury and surgical repair.

This model predicts changes in stress within a tissue in response to changes in physical and chemical properties. Source: Jay Humphrey, Yale University

Multiscale modeling of microbial biofilms for improved treatment of antibiotic resistant infections. The majority of naturally occurring bacteria grow as biofilms -- large numbers of bacteria that self-organize into three-dimensional structures -- which often renders them resistant to antibiotic treatments. Although they represent the vast majority of microbial life on the planet, the basic structural and biochemical characteristics of biofilms are still poorly understood. Scientists are combining computational and experimental tools to address the challenge of characterizing, predicting, and treating these complex systems. The goal is to develop an experimentally driven computer model that generates accurate predictions of biofilm behavior. The predictions will be used to develop novel ways for treating resistant biofilms found on the surfaces of implanted medical devices, such as urinary and venous catheters, breast implants, and pacemakers.

The NIBIB supports the Interagency Modeling and Analysis Group (IMAG) which coordinates the Multiscale Modeling (MSM) Consortium of investigators who develop multiscale models to solve various biomedical, biological and behavioral research questions.
Click to expand...

Or any of the following for that matter;

https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/computers_math/computer_modeling/

https://www.element14.com/community...uter-modeling-to-create-new-magnetic-material

https://eandt.theiet.org/content/ar...ts-use-computer-modelling-for-drug-discovery/

That the OP is woefully lacking in how scientists actually go about doing real world research is demonstrated yet again with this latest rant. It explains why he is constantly trying to boost his low self esteem by denigrating others with puerile ad homs.

But the cherry on the cake is that every time the OP goes off on one these ludicrous hyperbolic tirades he just exposes his profound incomprehension of science itself.

Derideo_Te · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

It is a binary choice or possibility. Either,

Goddidit!

Nothindidit!

Click to expand...

BZZZT Wrong!

It is only a "binary choice" to the synapse challenged. It is theists make fallacious assumptions like that. Science deals with REALITY which is anything but a "binary choice". When scientists look at the universe they observe that there are always multiples. There are multiple types of stars and planets and plants and fish and elements and molecules. To fallaciously assume that earth is the ONLY planet where life arose is nothing more than theist self serving arrogance. Furthermore to assume that life on other planets would be identical to life on earth would be equally fallacious. So scientists don't make the mistakes that are common amongst theists when it comes to idiocies like "binary choices".

You can make cutesy smears, to try to marginalize or ridicule the opposing view, but it does not take away the obvious reality of one of these 2 possibilities being the Cause of origins.

Why not present your scientifically based arguments, for or against either model? Why just heckle from the sidelines, pitching propaganda, phony caricatures, & fake science?
Click to expand...

Oh, the IRONY!

Grumblenuts · Aug 28, 2017

usfan said: ↑

We still have NO EVIDENCE that life can spontaneously begin from non-life.
Click to expand...

I submit that there was no life for a long time as the Earth cooled and slowly formed into much the planet it appears today. We agree there was "non-life" initially. We could easily destroy anything we currently call "life" by simulating conditions like those present up until a point long after the Earth initially formed. Therefore, at some point, not just sustaining life, but sustained life became "naturally" possible where before there was none. First there was no life, then there was life. Evidently, life began at some point after "non-life" chronologically. Then fossil records show there were many periods where life clearly took some huge hits, but soon returned as conditions improved for sustaining life - rather "spontaneously" one might say. So based on this scientific, largely lab repeatable, experimental evidence, I call BS on your entire premise.

Grumblenuts · Aug 28, 2017

To the contrary, I submit that we still have NO EVIDENCE to support any claim that life can't begin spontaneously. Adding "from non-life" after "spontaneously" is pointless redundancy.

HereWeGoAgain · Aug 28, 2017

Grumblenuts said: ↑

To the contrary, I submit that we still have NO EVIDENCE to support any claim that life can't begin spontaneously. Adding "from non-life" after "spontaneously" is pointless redundancy.
Click to expand...

You can't obtain proof of a universal negative. It is logically impossible.

Grumblenuts · Aug 28, 2017

HereWeGoAgain said: ↑

You can't obtain proof of a universal negative. It is logically impossible.
Click to expand...

Don't try that then.

Log in or Sign up

Origins: The Evidence

JDliberal Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Cosmo Well-Known Member

JDliberal Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

usfan Banned

usfan Banned

usfan Banned

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

usfan Banned

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

usfan Banned

usfan Banned

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

usfan Banned

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

usfan Banned

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

HereWeGoAgain Banned

Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Origins: The Evidence

JDliberal Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Cosmo Well-Known Member

JDliberal Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

usfan Banned

usfan Banned

usfan Banned

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

usfan Banned

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

usfan Banned

usfan Banned

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

RiaRaeb Well-Known Member Past Donor

usfan Banned

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

usfan Banned

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Derideo_Te Well-Known Member

Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

HereWeGoAgain Banned

Grumblenuts Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches