Mindboggling result of Ribosomal RNA sequence analysis

[Rumraket]

Life is eternal. That is the answer.

Life isn't eternal. That is the answer.

Wow, arguing the way a creationist does is really easy. :lol:

 

[Rumraket]

. The origin of life is an unavoidable necessity.

granted invoking a naturalistic origin of life is not an unavoidable necessity. Unless you reject design by default

I didn't use the word naturalistic. I just said the origin of life. However life originated, it would have to originate somehow, because it can't have always existed.

How do we know this? Because all life we know of is made of cells, which are made of atoms. Cells, nor even atoms, could persist at the planck time. Cells couldn't persist for long in intergalactic space as they would disintegrate due to cosmic radiation. So life would have to have originated on some planet somewhere, probably just here on Earth, and then evolved from then on. This simply follows from what we know about stellar and cosmological evolution.

Someone like you migh think God created the Earth, but to begin with it was devoid of life, and then later He created life on Earth. Then if that is really what happened, then the origin of life would be when God created life.

Problem is, there is no evidence that this is what happened. But in contrast, there IS some evidence that it was a process governed by ordinary physical and chemical laws and processes.

granted, amino acids can be created by natural mechanisms as the articles show, the problem is that in order to have life* one needs to organice the amino acids (and proteins ) in a very specific order, and there is no natural law or principle that would organice amino acids in this specific order.

We don't know how the first proteins arose, I'm not claiming to know that. What I'm claiming to know is that there is evidence that it was a process governed by ordinary physical and chemical laws and processes.

Why would I claim this? What is that evidence? That's what the three papers I linked explains.

There is a hypothesis that says that, however the first proteins were biosynthesized, they were biosynthesized by using the amino acids that already existed in the prebiotic environment.

That means those first proteins should have a distribution of amino acids that matches the distribution you would get, if an undirected physical or chemical process were making them.

The oldest known protein folds have been phylogenetically inferred by three independent methods (which implies the result is very robust and doesn't suffer from a methodological bias), and their amino acid composition (the distribution) is found to very strongly match the distribution you get from non-biological physical and chemical processes that make amino acids.

In other words, this is a confirmation that the very first proteins were produced by a basic physical and chemical process. This is textbook observational hypothesis testing.

But if life originated by intelligent design, the designer could have made the first life to exist with basically any distribution of amino acids that the designer wanted. For example, the designer could have made the first life to exist with the exact same distribution of amino acids that we see in life that exists today on Earth in 2017. In contrast, there is zero evidence for any sort of divine creation. Literally zero. There is no property of life that is uniquely, or statistically significantly predicted by a design hypothesis.

if we find "units" organized in a complex pattern that is not likely achievable by natural laws

But it is likely achievable by natural law. That is the whole goddamn point.

if life came to be by natural laws, it becomes inexplicable why is it that abiogenesis only occurred 1 time in the last 4B years. it remains inexplicable why don't we see life coming from none life all the time.

Not at al. First of all, life could have arisen many times (we don't know), but it could have all went extinct except for one lineage that diverged into the diversit of life we see to day. Maybe all the other originations were outcompeted by the life we now know to exist. It is simply fals to declare as you do, that it is "inexplicable" why we don't see life coming from non-life all the time.

Why don't we see hurricanes form all the time over terrestrial landmasses? Because the conditions that favor the origination of hurricanes are not over terrestrial landmasses. Why don't we see hurricanes originate over ALL bodies of water all the time? Because the conditions that favor the origination of hurricanes don't persist over all bodies of water for long enough time to hurricanes to keep arising.

Just because we don't see some particular phenomenon CONSTANTLY doesn't mean that it is inexplicable why that is so. Hurricanes require special conditions to form. Those conditions exist many places on Earth, but not everywhere on Earth, and they don't persist all the time. The same could be true for life. Maybe the conditions only existed for it's originated in the early history of our planet. So life stopped originating because the conditions that favor the origination of life only existed for a short period in the early history of our planet (and maybe only in a few locations), but as the climates and environments changed and the planet cooled, those conditions faded away so life could no longer originate. For example, Earths atmosphere now contains a lot of oxygen that could be interfering with the required chemistry.

We don't know, but that doesn't mean it is "inexplicable".

*Life can be defined in this context as anything organic that can reproduce. or feel free to provide a better definition.

That is a fine definition in my view. That means that if it is true that life ONLY comes from life, then it is false that life came from God, because God isn't organic.

 

[Sparhafoc]

granted invoking a naturalistic origin of life is not an unavoidable necessity. Unless you reject design by default

Or if design is not apparent.

Or if there's no evidence for design.

Or if proponents of design can't get their fingers out of their arses and muster any reason to lend their conjecture validity.

 

[Sparhafoc]

but you are always unable to show a single lie.

There's one right there.

I've showed you lying a dozen times. I've posted it, showed where you moved from one contention to another while pretending to still be doing the first.

What you are now doing is basing my action on whether you acknowledge the lie. Of course you don't acknowledge the lie - that's because you are a liar.

you have insulted me and other members multiple times, so if anyone deserves to be banned, it is you, because insulting people is against the rules of the forum.

Ahh go pop it back up your rectum you useless troll.

 

[Sparhafoc]

LEROY - do you reckon you're going to be The One?

The first ever cdesign proponentsist to provide a testable metric of design?

What's funny is that I can provide a metric of design - it's essential to finding artifacts made by humans in the past.

But my metric of design doesn't show design in the universe, so where's your metric, LEROY?

Come on Mr All Mouth And No Trousers - stop playing with yourself on the internet and show you have a valid argument for once in your sorry existence.




https://ncse.com/creationism/legal/cdesign-proponentsists

For years, "intelligent design" (ID) proponents denied that ID is just a new label for creationism. However, it is now well-known that the first intelligent design "textbook," Of Pandas and People, is just a revised version of a classic "two-model' creationism vs. evolution book named Creation Biology. As Barbara Forrest showed during her testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pandas was remade into an intelligent design textbook in 1987, in a few months after the Supreme Court ruling against creation science in Edwards v. Aguillard came down.

The most striking example of the transition was discovered by Dr. Forrest as she compared the drafts of Creation Biology and Of Pandas and People. Not only had "creationism" and "creationist" literally been replaced, apparently via a word processor, with "intelligent design" and "design proponent" in passages that were otherwise unchanged, but she even found a transitional form between the two labels!

 

[thenexttodie]

Interesting read. Thank you for posting this.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Also one cannot have a solid argument, in the atheists mind, for intelligent design.

This is not because the argument/Evidence doesn't exist... it's simply because the atheist cannot handle the arguments while in the dead state.

In other words atheists are blind, Jesus called them blind. Spiritually dead. In that state every argument for God will seem to have a falsifying argument against.

God exists, as can easily be determined by the mere fact of intelligent design.

If by God's grace you are lifted out of that dead state you will come to realize the pitiful arguments you have given against intelligent design.

Man, the christians trolls really believe that god will go easy on all their lying for Jesus.

Must be nice to think you won't be accountable for anything you do. :lol:

 

[Deleted member 619]

There is evidence for intelligent design.

Bible.

To say no evidence for intelligent design is to forget all about the world's best selling book.

Sorry, but no. The bible doesn't constitute evidence for anything, not least because it's the claim.

Indeed, if you really think that god chose a book as the method of communicating his intentions to the world, then the god you believe in is an incompetent fucking moron.

http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.co.uk/2017/01/theres-this-book.html

 

[Deleted member 619]

Also one cannot have a solid argument, in the atheists mind, for intelligent design.

This is not because the argument/Evidence doesn't exist... it's simply because the atheist cannot handle the arguments while in the dead state.

In other words atheists are blind, Jesus called them blind. Spiritually dead. In that state every argument for God will seem to have a falsifying argument against.

God exists, as can easily be determined by the mere fact of intelligent design.

If by God's grace you are lifted out of that dead state you will come to realize the pitiful arguments you have given against intelligent design.

 

[Bango Skank]

There is evidence for intelligent design.

Bible.

To say no evidence for intelligent design is to forget all about the world's best selling book.

Well, that is true. Books are intelligently designed. So books like the Bible or Dark Tower are evidence for intelligent design.

 

[Visaki]

There is evidence for intelligent design.

Bible.

To say no evidence for intelligent design is to forget all about the world's best selling book.

Bible is the claim, not the evidence for the claim.

Somehow this simple fact is very hard for Christians to understand.

 

[Sparhafoc]

There is evidence for intelligent design.

Bible.

To say no evidence for intelligent design is to forget all about the world's best selling book.

:lol:

1) Cite the alleged evidence in the Bible

2) Learn to read

3) Not the world's best selling book - rather, the world's most copied and distributed book

4) Intelligent Design is a modern position used to sneakily evade being called a spade - ID is not a Biblical position.

5) How do you get so much wrong with so few words?

 

[Sparhafoc]

Also one cannot have a solid argument, in the atheists mind, for intelligent design.

Yes one can... as one said, provide a fucking design metric.

Can't provide a design metric?

Then you're probably talking out of the wrong end of your digestive tract.

This is not because the argument/Evidence doesn't exist... it's simply because the atheist cannot handle the arguments while in the dead state.

In other words atheists are blind, Jesus called them blind. Spiritually dead. In that state every argument for God will seem to have a falsifying argument against.

God exists, as can easily be determined by the mere fact of intelligent design.

If by God's grace you are lifted out of that dead state you will come to realize the pitiful arguments you have given against intelligent design.

What a nasty piece of work you are. Still, probably best we delay you here so you're not out murdering people in the name of your religious beliefs.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Dragon glas says :


In order to posit design, you first have to posit a "designer" - and explain how that designer came into being
......

Wrong.


One does not have to explain how that designer came to being to posit intelligent design.


Dragon glad offered zero evidence in his assertion. Zero evidence therefore needed for mine.

Oh look!

The Creationist can't use the quote function! :lol:

The guy asserting designedness can't even find design intent in an unarguably designed human artifact.

What a surprise! :lol:

No chap. Provide a metric of design, or flap for 20 pages showing everyone you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Sparhafoc]

The claim is intelligent design

The evidence is the bible

Nope.

The claim is the Bible.

Provide evidence corroborating the design claims in the Bible.

Genesis 1.... in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.....

I claim I use the bible to support my claim for intelligent design.

Then your claim is rejected as being circular reasoning and an absence of comprehension as to what constitutes evidence.

I told you what you need to do - so hop to it.

 

[Visaki]

The claim is intelligent design

Yes.

The evidence is the bible

No. The Bible is the claim. The claim can not be evidence for the claim, that is called circular reasoning. Or in other words very, very stupid.

Genesis 1.... in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.....

Yes. That is the claim. Now because you weren't there and no man was, there is no other option than to take this on faith, or in other words without evidence whatsoever. This is your reasoning, not mine, so what you have actually admitted is that (at least ) this part of the Bible can not be used as evidence.

I claim I use the bible to support my claim for intelligent design.

Yes. So what? Claiming something doesn't make it true.

I freely admit that I'm doing this only to feel superior.

 

[Rumraket]

The claim is intelligent design

The evidence is the bible

No, the bible is where you GET the claim of intelligent design. So the bible isn't the evidence.

Evidence is what is uniquely predicted by a hypothesis. In the bible the hypothesis is that God created the Earth.

Genesis 1.... in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.....

That's a perfect example of a claim, not evidence.

I claim I use the bible to support my claim for intelligent design.

Yes you really do claim that, but that just measn you're doing a category error. You can't support the claim you make, with the claim you make.

You've made your claim, now you need to find evidence.

 

[Sparhafoc]

if life came to be by natural laws, it becomes inexplicable why is it that abiogenesis only occurred 1 time in the last 4B years. it remains inexplicable why don't we see life coming from none life all the time.

1) appeal to incredulity

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

2) Who says it never occurred twice?

3) Do you expect abiogenesis to keep on generating new elementary life precursors when a) the environment is different and b) the environment is now full of stuff that would eat anything lacking an evolutionary heritage.

As usual, your rejection required a host of undisclosed assumptions that you could not justify if your life depended on it.

Life can be defined in this context as anything organic that can reproduce. or feel free to provide a better definition.

Yeah, that's a crap definition. Instead of having LEROY - who's ideologically hostile to any and all science which doesn't conform to his scripture - let's instead use the standard scientific definitions of life.

I walked you through these once before, but it shows how little information passes your cognitive bias filter.

i) Homeostasis
ii) Organization
iii) Metabolism
iv) Growth (i.e. anabolism maintained greater than catabolism)
v) Adaptation
vi) Stimuli Response
vii) Reproduction & heritability

We could talk about signalling, we could talk about self-sustaining processes, we could talk about proton gradients... but we can't pretend that life is some simple definition just because it might be convenient for LEROY.

 

[Sparhafoc]

granted, amino acids can be created by natural mechanisms as the articles show, the problem is that in order to have life* one needs to organice the amino acids (and proteins ) in a very specific order, and there is no natural law or principle that would organice amino acids in this specific order.

And yet that's exactly what the papers show - how organization occurs through wholly natural forces.

 

[Steelmage99]

granted, amino acids can be created by natural mechanisms as the articles show, the problem is that in order to have life* one needs to organice the amino acids (and proteins ) in a very specific order, and there is no natural law or principle that would organice amino acids in this specific order.

And yet that's exactly what the papers show - how organization occurs through wholly natural forces.

And let's not be blind to the fact that organization is one step away from LEROY feeling justified in making an argument from complexity.
Such an argument is of course fatuous, but I bet it is the direction we are headed.

Actually what LEROY is saying IS already an argument from complexity. He just haven't gotten around to claiming irreducibility....yet (I give it 2 pages max).
Then he will be shown that irreducible complexity isn't a problem for natural processes (which he will fight tooth and nail, and then ignore for about 4 more pages) and the conversation will slowly peter out.

...