rationalist
Member
Well, after I gave you on various occasions very clear evidence why natural, aka non-natural causes, are inadequate to explain the evidence seen in nature, you still talk about " creationism’s bewildering inanity " which is pretty remarkable, to say the least. Of course, most things pointed out, have simply been flying over your head, and you have a remarkable ability to simply ignore those facts as if they have no relevance. Most of the unsolvable problems plaguing abiogenesis research, you have simply hand-waved them under the table, with the, oh-so common excuse: " Science is still working on it" - completely neglecting the FACT, that life is not only matter but in its essence, composed by instructional assembly information. That is in as much a "hard problem" for science attempting to give natural explanations, as the problem of consciousness. Where do the tons of data, information, codes, and information transmission systems that drive biological function, come from?
https://******************************/t3061-the-algorithmic-origins-of-life
Semiotic functional information is not a tangible entity, and as such, it is beyond the reach of, and cannot be created by any undirected physical process.This is not an argument about probability. Conceptual semiotic information is simply beyond the sphere of influence of any undirected physical process. To suggest that a physical process can create semiotic code is like suggesting that a rainbow can write poetry... it is never going to happen! Physics and chemistry alone do not possess the tools to create a concept. The only cause capable of creating conceptual semiotic information is a conscious intelligent mind.
Life is no accident, the vast quantity of semiotic information in life provides powerful positive evidence that we have been designed.
To quote one scientist working at the cutting edge of our understanding of the programming information in biology, he described what he saw as an “alien technology written by an engineer a million times smarter than us”.
Why do you think, have brilliant, as one the smartest atheists, Anthony Flew, moved away from atheism? No, it is not because he became insane. He was very lucid and full in his mind, when he wrote this:
https://******************************/t2852-anthony-flew?highlight=flew
There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins’ comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a “lucky chance.” If that’s the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.So, after losing ground in regards to abiogenesis, the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes, which is an integrated part of the tree of life, is breaking apart under your feet as well.
Not much time ago, when we had our first longer interaction, you still firm and convinced, were blaming me, and claiming that a transitional organism from archaea to eukaryotes had been found. You were boasting about that in your typical condescending manner. When I pointed out, that the paper, which you presented, from 2015, was refuted by more in-depth scientific analysis by a more recent scientific paper in 2017, you remained silent.
Now, you move your story, and claim that " we're not looking for a last universal common ancestor for Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes anyway."
Oh, you would love to have that evidence in your toolkit. And now that you don't, you behave as if it had no relevance. So you are basically groundless in regards to two VERY important issues, which is the origin of life, and the origin of prokaryotes. Your worldview is falling apart.
i absolutely can. And I do pretend that for good reasons. Eliminative inductions argue for the truth of a proposition by arguing that competitors to that proposition are false. Persistent lack of progress on a scientific problem is exactly what one should expect when a causal puzzle has been fundamentally misconceived, or when the toolkit employed in causal explanation is too limited. ( Contrast this with Popperian falsification, where propositions are corroborated to the degree that they successfully withstand attempts to falsify them ) When the available option forms a dichotomy, just to option, A, or not A, they form a mutually exclusive and exhaustive class, eliminating all the competitors entails that the proposition is true. As Sherlock Holmes's famous dictum says: when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. In this case, eliminative inductions, in fact, become deductions.
As Matt Dillahunty says: I want to know as many true things as possible. I absolutely DO want to know as much as possible about evolution. And what I have figured out so far, does not corroborate what YOU want to be true.
STOP misrepresenting me !! We will get there if you have enough stamina. You lost round 1 ( abiogenesis) and round 2 ( the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotes ). The next thing that I intend to go through with you is the origin of cyanobacteria, nitrogenase, the nitrogen cycle, and photosynthesis.
There, you will lose BADLY as well, as Crispr CAS9 did, first accusing me of being a " know-nothing pretending to know - creationist" and silenced, after i asked him what came first: The protective proteins of photosystem II, or PSII..... Here, as a third IMPORTANT point in the narrative of the history of the world, once again your materialistic worldview will not withstand scrutiny.
There is, and I acknowledged that already. Dogs from wolves, Donkeys, and horses, Chimps and Gorillas, etc. secondary speciation, variation within its kind, and adaptation is an undisputed fact. We can agree on this. The disagreement comes, when we have to explain the big diversity of organismal architecture and form. Similarity does NOT mean by default evolution. It can mean COMMON DESIGN. That's why I told you before, and I say it again:
In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.
I am fine with that. As I am also fine with starting at the root of the tree, which I have done, and there, already proven you wrong. Prokaryotes and Eukaryotes are a BIG different thing.
This has been done. See the few examples I gave you in regards to the Cambrian, and pre-Cambrian. Even Koonin points out to a Big Bang of biological life. And if you don't acknowledge his authority on this matter, I don't know who you would... maybe at this point then, you have drifted away from any reason, and embrace your narrative, no matter how irrational, or unsupported it is.
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1973067/
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.
