News:

The default theme for this site has been updated. For further information, please take a look at the announcement regarding HAF changing its default theme.

Main Menu

According to Dredge: Abiogenesis is Magic

Started by Dredge, December 30, 2016, 05:23:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Firebird

Quote from: Apathy on February 04, 2017, 10:48:44 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 04, 2017, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 31, 2017, 12:31:28 AM
Quote
Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers.
I've heard of Answers in Genesis but I've never actually visited that site.

*pats Dredge on the back*

Hahahaha
Oh great, if he starts spewing Ken Hamm crap, I don't think I'll be able to take much more.
"Great, replace one book about an abusive, needy asshole with another." - Will (moderator) on replacing hotel Bibles with "Fifty Shades of Grey"

Arturo

Quote from: Firebird on February 05, 2017, 01:23:19 AM
Quote from: Apathy on February 04, 2017, 10:48:44 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 04, 2017, 01:20:49 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on January 31, 2017, 12:31:28 AM
Quote
Do yourself a favour and stop looking at crap such as Answers in Genesis for what you think are answers.
I've heard of Answers in Genesis but I've never actually visited that site.

*pats Dredge on the back*

Hahahaha
Oh great, if he starts spewing Ken Hamm crap, I don't think I'll be able to take much more.

Ken Hamm doesn't believe in science at all and thinks the earth is 6,000 years old.
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

I can't remember, have prions been mentioned?

In the area of self-replication we usually think of eukaryote and prokaryote type organism, possesing fissionable DNA whether organised in a nucleus or not.

QuoteA prion is an infectious agent composed entirely of protein material, called PrP (short for prion protein), that can fold in multiple, structurally distinct ways, at least one of which is transmissible to other prion proteins, leading to disease that is similar to viral infection.

So, no DNA involed but a replicable molecule that is infectious.

At the moment there is no treatment, particularly drug based, for the diseases prions cause - so it is not under "threat" and has no need to evolve. But, given a few more billion years, will this always be the same?

It is, perhaps, silly to think of prions as any kind of "missing link" between non-biological chemistry and even virus type organisms, DNA was the big leap. However they are replicable molecules that have no apparent "metabolism" and seem to offer no beneficial function to their "hosts". Purely parasitical chemistry.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dredge

Quote from: Asmodean on February 01, 2017, 07:28:53 AM
Quote from: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 04:51:12 AM
This is not what I asked.  I'm not talking about what it is, based on appearance; I'm talking about how it came into existence, based on appearance.
No, what you are trying to do is argue semantics with someone who would normally jump at half a chance to do so. In this instance, I'm happy to point out the flaw in your counter
Ok, I'll try another angle:  Based on the available evidence, it would be fair to say that even the simplest living organsim that can exist is necessarily a complex machine that performs complex tasks - reproduction, for example. 
Is it more logical to conclude that a complex machine that performs complex tasks is a result of design, or to conclude that it is a result of non-design?  (As far as I know, the only alternative to design is chance.)
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

Dredge

Quote from: Gloucester on January 31, 2017, 08:11:33 AM
Quote from: Recusant on January 31, 2017, 05:44:07 AM
Quote from: Apathy on January 31, 2017, 04:45:46 AM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.

:chin: You're not the only one who's said that.

And it's pretty poor quality trolling at that!
If I were trolling, an unprejudiced mind would rate it as between average and slightly-above-average.
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

OldGit

Quote from: Dredge
Ok, I'll try another angle:  Based on the available evidence, it would be fair to say that even the simplest living
Is it more logical to conclude that a complex machine that performs complex tasks is a result of design, or to conclude that it is a result of non-design?  (As far as I know, the only alternative to design is chance.)

Oh, for Pete's sake!  This has been exhaustively dealt with by so many writers, you must know our answer by now.  I suppose you've blanked it out of your mind, as christians tend to do.  I won't weary all the other members by going through it yet again.

Dredge

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 08:09:16 PM
Quote from: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 05:04:30 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 28, 2017, 08:06:20 AM
In the case of the Universe, life or human eye, for that matter, they sort-of only appear designed to those without the knowledge or understanding of their workings.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

They're designed by natural processes, which makes it all the more wonderous.
Designed by natural processes?  Do you realize what you're saying?   Design requires intelligence and foresight.  This is the opposite of what evolution says, which is that it is a blind, mindless, purposeless, aimless process. 

--------------------------------------

A dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process.  Such thinking truly is "wonderous"(sic) !  (The correct spelling is "wondrous")
Follow the evidence wherever it leads.

OldGit

Like so many members here, Asmo is not a native English speaker.  His command of the language is superb, so we don't take kindly to mocking the occasional mistake.

Dave

#338
Quote from: Dredge on February 06, 2017, 09:03:32 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on January 31, 2017, 08:11:33 AM
Quote from: Recusant on January 31, 2017, 05:44:07 AM
Quote from: Apathy on January 31, 2017, 04:45:46 AM
I can tell from here this guy is trolling.

:chin: You're not the only one who's said that.

And it's pretty poor quality trolling at that!
If I were trolling, an unprejudiced mind would rate it as between average and slightly-above-average.

That is what makes it poor trolling - I actually gave you a back-handed compliment!

To be a "good" troll you have to be more provocative and insulting than even you are!

Hmm, I suppose it could be argued that you fail at being a troll and at being a non-troll.

Prejudice, pre-judging, is an attitude not based on actual knowledge or experience, of a person or class of people, like saying all atheists are evil or all theists are deluded idiots. Neither applies in reality. Some atheists are high-grade humanitarians and some theists are at genius level. Most of each category fall somewhere on the line between the two extremes. Regular people people, evil theists and deluded idiots of atheists exist!

Since I have experience of your personal attitude and beliefs, based on the ideas you have expressed in this forum, I would deny the charge of "prejudice".. "Postjudice" (judging after experience/knowledge) is not (yet) in the dictionary.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Dredge on February 06, 2017, 09:24:12 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 08:09:16 PM
Quote from: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 05:04:30 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 28, 2017, 08:06:20 AM
In the case of the Universe, life or human eye, for that matter, they sort-of only appear designed to those without the knowledge or understanding of their workings.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

They're designed by natural processes, which makes it all the more wonderous.
Designed by natural processes?  Do you realize what you're saying?   Design requires intelligence and foresight.  This is the opposite of what evolution says, which is that it is a blind, mindless, purposeless, aimless process.

Design requires foresight and intelligence? Says who? You?

QuoteA dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process.  Such thinking truly is "wonderous"(sic) !  (The correct spelling is "wondrous")

Yes, it can.

Well, sorry for not spelling the word according to your taste, I only speak English occasionally and it doesn't resemble the equivalent in Portuguese.  :sadshake: I guess I will have to lose my faith in the free dictionary now.  :cryandrun:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Wonderous
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Dave

Quote from: Dredge on February 06, 2017, 09:24:12 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 01, 2017, 08:09:16 PM
Quote from: Dredge on February 01, 2017, 05:04:30 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on January 28, 2017, 08:06:20 AM
In the case of the Universe, life or human eye, for that matter, they sort-of only appear designed to those without the knowledge or understanding of their workings.
Huh?  The more I learn about how organisms and their organs and cells work, the more I'm convinced they're designed.

They're designed by natural processes, which makes it all the more wonderous.
Designed by natural processes?  Do you realize what you're saying?   Design requires intelligence and foresight.  This is the opposite of what evolution says, which is that it is a blind, mindless, purposeless, aimless process. 

--------------------------------------

A dialysis machine performs the same function as a kidney.  According to you, the biological equivalent of a dialysis machine can form as a result of some mindless "natural" process.  Such thinking truly is "wonderous"(sic) !  (The correct spelling is "wondrous")

Great archtecture, like cathedrals, came before science got good enough (in Europe at least)  to design "gothic" arches or flying buttresses. Lots of stuff fell down before they got it right. We see the results of many iterations, many attempts, lots of "suck-it-and-see."

Reiteration is a natural process out of which design grew for humans - once they had formalised and "formularised" things. Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment. Humans do not have the time or resources to do it that way, but we do have the ability to transfer proven ideas into new constructs. Or to use them to derive theories that are an acceptable, pro-tem, explanations (to rational people)  for those things we do not, and maybe can never, have full knowledge of.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Gloucester on February 06, 2017, 10:02:36 AM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Dave

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 06, 2017, 07:28:22 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 06, 2017, 10:02:36 AM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Bad Penny II

Quote from: Gloucester on February 07, 2017, 08:18:14 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 06, 2017, 07:28:22 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 06, 2017, 10:02:36 AM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."

I don't like that definition very much.
Some of the many possible mutations occur, I'm not easy with calling it random, genes probably have reasons for changing the way they do.
I don't like the "will survive either," I think it's more of  a might, unless you're being retrospective.
Take my advice, don't listen to me.

Dave

Quote from: Bad Penny II on February 07, 2017, 10:03:31 AM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 07, 2017, 08:18:14 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on February 06, 2017, 07:28:22 PM
Quote from: Gloucester on February 06, 2017, 10:02:36 AM
Evolution is a series of iterations from an original, but based on generating enough varieties that at least one will stand up to its environment.

You get it. :grin:

Natural selection removes designs that don't work as well from a population, it's like one big filtering system.

On reflection:

"Evolution is a series of environmentally driven random iterations from an original generating enough varieties that at least one will survive that environment."

I don't like that definition very much.
Some of the many possible mutations occur, I'm not easy with calling it random, genes probably have reasons for changing the way they do.
I don't like the "will survive either," I think it's more of  a might, unless you're being retrospective.

I feel you are close to ascribing purpose if you think genes have a "reason" to change. Is it possible that a molecule, no matter how large and complex and in huge quantities can have a "reason" to do anything?

Your "might survive" only applies if attached to "until the next major environmental challenge." The new iteration, to be valid, as to have survived the last challenge successfully. As to the next challenge . . .

For us "global warming" might be our next major envitonmental challenge, well, that or a "nuclear winter". The iteration, variety, of humanity that might survive either of those challenges would need to be alive right now for humanity to survive. But it will probably be as much, if not more, of a mental iteration rather than a physical one. It is possible that we can "design" our survival, adapt our immediate environment, as well as adapt to it, whether the survivors be of Kalihari Bushman or Siberian stock.

Couple tens of thousands of years of genetic adaptation with whatever technology and knowledge is left and available . . .
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74