The Design of the Simplest Self-Replicator

[Elshamah]

You are arguing that because human beings have failed to produce life, we should believe there must be a super-human that created life. It not only doesn't follow, the reasoning seems to be flatly stupid.

:lol:

All parts and processes described in the op are essential for a living self repliacting cell to exist. That makes the cell the most intricate , interdependent, irreducible complex system known. Irreducible complexity is the hallmark of design. A designer is indispensable. Only fools argue that life can come from non life.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#gaps_god

ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning:

(a) Intelligent designers exist and act in the world.

(b) When they do so, as a rule, they leave reliable signs of such intelligent action behind.

(c) Indeed, for many of the signs in question such as CSI and IC, intelligent agents are the only observed cause of such effects, and chance + necessity (the alternative) is not a plausible source, because the islands of function are far too sparse in the space of possible relevant configurations.

(d) On the general principle of science, that “like causes like,” we are therefore entitled to infer from sign to the signified: intelligent action.

(e) This conclusion is, of course, subject to falsification if it can be shown that undirected chance + mechanical forces do give rise to CSI or IC. Thus, ID is falsifiable in principle but well supported in fact.

In sum, ID is indeed a legitimate scientific endeavor: the science that studies signs of intelligence.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Irreducible complexity is the hallmark of design. A designer is indispensable.

Have you shown cells to be irreducibly complex? I think not.

And I have to ask, isn't the abrahamic god irreducibly complex? So, that would be the hallmark that god has been designed, wouldn't it?

Oh, that's right: the oxymoronic "justifiable special pleading".

Only fools argue that life can come from non life.

Such as arguing that the abrahamic god poofed up life out of dust, that kind of life from non-life?

Oh, that's right: the oxymoronic "justifiable special pleading".

ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning:

No they don't.

In sum, ID is indeed a legitimate scientific endeavor: the science that studies signs of intelligence.

No it isn't. This is not what ID studies.

So... still going with "because god" or have you something better?

 

[Rando]

I'm still waiting for that measurement of "information." No one at the Dishonesty Institute has EVER produced the method for measuring it, and this is arguably one of their most testable claims, you'd think they would have no problem producing it.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

True enough, but they refer to a spectrum that at least exists. I don't see how that's the case for good/bad/evil. AFAIC, they're nosense terms.

We refer to things in terms of whether they feel "good" or "bad" - taste, for example.

Our biological response to sensations has a corresponding qualia - which is physically-based, ie, based in the real world.

I'm certain that at some point in the future we'll be able to explain these as a purely physical phenomenon - its uniqueness for each individual being due to their genomic/environmental interactions.

As such, they're reality-based.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

You are arguing that because human beings have failed to produce life, we should believe there must be a super-human that created life. It not only doesn't follow, the reasoning seems to be flatly stupid.

:lol:

All parts and processes described in the op are essential for a living self repliacting cell to exist.

How do you know? Prove it.

As far as I can see, they only seem necessary because those are what cells as we know them are. Also, just because they are integral parts of cells doesn't mean there is no way they can evolve.

That makes the cell the most intricate , interdependent, irreducible complex system known.

This claim doesn't follow from the previous one, you can't start the sentence with "that makes the cell... " because nothing you said in the previous sentence makes this new claim of yours true.

Another failure of logic.

Also, even if this new claim is true, that "the cell is the most intricate, interdependent bla bla" system known, so what? We already know such systems can evolve. Evolution predicts irreducibly complex systems will evolve.

Irreducible complexity is the hallmark of design.

No, irreducible complexity is made routinely by natural processes, including evolution. So irreducible complexity in and of itself, no matter how intricate, cannot be used to show that an object was designed when both natural processes and design is known to produce it. It is therefore evidence for neither.

A designer is indispensable.

A designer is dispensible.

Only fools argue that life can come from non life.

Only fools argue it takes divine magic to create life.

Life is built up of components all of which, by themselves, are not alive. There is no in-principle barrier between life and non-life, it is merely a collection of "dead" physical phenomena found to be localized in the same material entity, all of which individually have been shown to exist outside of living organisms.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/faq/#gaps_god

ID is not proposing “God” to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation.

ID is proposing god to paper over a gap in current scientific explanation. In fact the very reason ID is erecting design for life, instead of design for mountains or design for clouds, is that the origin of the latter is understood but that the origin of the former is not yet.

No amount of fanciful camouflaging philosophical jargon is going to take away this glaringly obvious pattern. ¨

FUCK, you even say as much in the very end here: The very criterion for falsification of your "design hypothesis" is that, if it was shown how life could originate naturally, design would be falsified, instantly implies that design is an argument from ignorance. Because if your ignorance was removed with a direct empirical demonstration, you would stop arguing for design.

That's it, that directly proves that design IS an argument from ignorance.

Instead ID theorists start from empirically observed, reliable, known facts and generally accepted principles of scientific reasoning:

(a) Intelligent designers exist and act in the world.

And those intelligent designers are made of atoms and called human beings. And so far they have failed to create life. So maybe intelligent design can't do it, maybe nature has to be the answer?

(b) When they do so, as a rule, they leave reliable signs of such intelligent action behind.

So does nature. One example is irreducible complexity. Evolution produces that all the time.

(c) Indeed, for many of the signs in question such as CSI

CSI has been debunked every time it has been brought up. In fact the primary author of the term CSI, William Dembski, has now abandoned the term completely and doesn't bother defending it anymore because he knows it has been refuted.

and IC

Produced by nature routinely.

, intelligent agents are the only observed cause of such effects

CSI doesn't exist as a useful measurable quantity, the inventor of the term has abandoned it when it was shown to him to be incalculable.

IC is routinely produced by natural processes and so cannot be an indication of design.

, and chance + necessity (the alternative) is not a plausible source

To make an argument from plausibility is to make a probability argument. You must therefore have a way to calculate the probability that a designer would design life.

Otherwise you have no probability with which to compare a natural origin of life with, so even though a natural origin of life may be unbelievably small, the odds of design might be even smaller. Without a way to estimate it, you have no basis for comparison and so a case of relative plausibility is impossible.

So, bring on the number. What are the odds of design and how do you know? Try it without non-sequiturs this time.

, because the islands of function are far too sparse in the space of possible relevant configurations.

Prove it.

(d) On the general principle of science, that “like causes like,”

What principle is that? Where did you get this? I have never seen this "principle of science" anywhere.

we are therefore entitled to infer from sign to the signified: intelligent action.

Given that pretty much the entirety of your list of premises for this argument are either unsupported or outright false, this conclusion doesn't follow.

(e) This conclusion is, of course, subject to falsification if it can be shown that undirected chance + mechanical forces do give rise to CSI or IC. Thus, ID is falsifiable in principle but well supported in fact.

This type of falsification would not even falsify the claim that life was designed. You don't know what falsification is.

Think about it: Even if it was shown that life could evolve naturally from non-life, would that falsify that claim that life that already exists was actually designed and didn't evolve? No. It would merely show that it was possible, not that design didn't take place.

Given that design is the motherload of all ad-hoc rationalizations that is chronicly made to fit all observations with the constant assertion that "what we see is what the designer wanted", it is patently unfalsifiable.

In sum, ID is indeed a legitimate scientific endeavor: the science that studies signs of intelligence.

Given that pretty much the entirety of your list of premises for this argument are either unsupported or outright false, this conclusion doesn't follow.

 

[Rumraket]

Irreducible complexity is the hallmark of design. A designer is indispensable.

Have you shown cells to be irreducibly complex? I think not.

I think he has. But that's not an argument for design. Think about it, isn't it rather trivial to see that there are components of living cells that, when removed, the cell stops working and dies? Obviously there is.

Take away the cell membrane and the cell dies. That's it, right there the cell is shown to be irreducibly complex. Does that mean it could not evolve or originate naturally? No.

Irreducibly complex systems are a prediction of the theory of evolution. So quite simply, IC is not an argument for design. It's a total non-starter.

 

[MarsCydonia]

Have you shown cells to be irreducibly complex? I think not.

I think he has. But that's not an argument for design. Think about it, isn't it rather trivial to see that there are components of living cells that, when removed, the cell stops working and dies? Obviously there is.

Take away the cell membrane and the cell dies. That's it, right there the cell is shown to be irreducibly complex. Does that mean it could not evolve or originate naturally? No.

Irreducibly complex systems are a prediction of the theory of evolution. So quite simply, IC is not an argument for design. It's a total non-starter.

I think what we have here is a difference in terms, hence the reason it is often said in these boards that terms should be properly defined.

I take "Irreducible Complexity", when viewed as part of the ID argumentation, to mean something that, at its most basic elements, could not have occured by natural means and as such require a supernatural origin (a magical designer).

So what I meant by "Have you (Elshamah) shown cells to be irreducibly complex? I think not." is: has he shown that cells could not have arisen by natural processes? I don't think he has.

However, I see that I may have used the term incorrectly.

 

[Deleted member 619]

We refer to things in terms of whether they feel "good" or "bad" - taste, for example.

Granted, but as we're dealing only with feelings, there's no objective mneasure. We can put numbers on 'hot' and 'cold'. We simply can't do this for good and bad.

As such, they're reality-based.

I suspect that this is one those things we'll simply never agree on. There are simply no referents, and you haven't really put a dent in that, except to refer to secondary referents. In the other examples, there are primary referents. Until you can quantify it, I'm unconvinced, and I maintain that the terms are without utility in any real sense. They're value-laden, and different for everyone.

 

[Elshamah]

Take away the cell membrane and the cell dies. That's it, right there the cell is shown to be irreducibly complex. Does that mean it could not evolve or originate naturally? No.
.

So what evolved first. The cell membrane, or the parts which it keeps inside ? What would the cell membrane evolve for, if it had no use. And it must be able to recognize what goes in, what goes out of the cell. How did it emerge with that ability ?

Origin of the cell membrane

A simple primitive cell, or protocell, would consist of two key components: a protocell membrane that defines a spatially localized compartment, and an informational polymer that allows for the replication and inheritance of functional information. 1

The emergence of the first cells on the early Earth was the culmination of a long history of prior chemical and geophysical processes.

Question: How do they know that ? They don't know. Thats just one of the typical baseless assertions without a shred of evidence.

Modern cell membranes are composed of complex mixtures of amphiphilic molecules such as phospholipids, sterols, and many other lipids as well as diverse proteins that perform transport and enzymatic functions. Phospholipid membranes are stable under a wide range of temperature, pH, and salt concentration conditions. Such membranes are extremely good permeability barriers, so that modern cells have complete control over the uptake of nutrients and the export of wastes through the specialized channel, pump and pore proteins embedded in their membranes. A great deal of complex biochemical machinery is also required to mediate the growth and division of the cell membrane during the cell cycle.

Question: Had this complex machinery for growth and division not have to be fully functional with the first cell, otherwise replication would not be able to occur, and life would not continue ??

Fatty acids are attractive as the fundamental building block of prebiotic membranes in that they are chemically simpler than phospholipids. Fatty acids with a saturated acyl chain are extremely stable compounds and therefore might have accumulated to significant levels, even given a relatively slow or episodic synthesis.

An early RNA replicase probably would not have a built-in way of differentiating between a replicase or non-replicase sequence, and as a result, will make a copy of any RNA that happens to be close by. Without some means of separating the replicases from the non-replicases, the population of replicases is unlikely to grow and prosper. This issue can be resolved if the replicases are placed within a compartment, such as a vesicle, which can physically separate the replicases from other RNAs. 2

In addition, a membrane may have played an important role in the early cell's ability to store energy in the form of a chemical gradient. In modern eukaryotic cells, the mitochondria, often called the "cellular powerhouse" uses an internal chemical gradient to create energy-storing molecules known as ATP.

FORMING FATTY ACIDS ON THE EARLY EARTH

How might fatty acids have formed on the early Earth? Some scientists have proposed that hydrothermal vents may have been sites where prebiotically important molecules, including fatty acids, were formed. Research has shown that some minerals can catalyze the stepwise formation of hydrocarbon tails of fatty acids from hydrogen and carbon monoxide gases -- gases that may have been released from hydrothermal vents. Fatty acids of various lengths are eventually released into the surrounding water.

It seems likely that primitive cells incorporated lipid-like molecules from the environment as a nutrient, rather than undertaking the much more complex process of synthesizing complex lipids by an enzyme-catalyzed process.

Based on what that scenario seems likely is a mistery to me......

http://www.csj.jp/journals/bcsj/bc-cont/b12may/85_20110349.html

Submarine hydrothermal systems (SHSs) have been thought of as a suitable environment for the origin of life subsequent to the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules. However, it has been pointed out that bioorganic molecules, such as amino acids, are easily degraded at a high temperature, and thus not likely to survive for the next step of chemical evolution in a SHS environment.


http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/MillerHighTemp.pdf

The problem with monomers is bad enough,but it is worse with polymers,e.g.,RNA and DNA (Lindahl1993),whose stability in the absence of efficient repair enzymes is too low to maintain genetic integrity iyperthermophiles. RNA and DNA are clearly too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment.The existence of an RNA world with ribose appears to be incompatible with the idea of a hot origin of life.

Although such materials might have been synthesized near hydrothermal vents in the early seas, the assembly of such materials is quite problematic. Conditions requiring high concentrations, exact pH and temperature, plus the absence of high sodium and small amounts of certain metal ions, prevents the assembly of such components within the earth's early oceans. Conditions that might concentrate fatty acids to sufficient levels to form membranes would also concentrate solutes that disrupt the formation of those membranes. Encapsulation of a proto-cell replicator and metabolic system would be quite problematic, since the conditions that would encourage such activity would likely lead to conditions that would disrupt the primitive membrane completely. Primitive membranes must be able to transport nutrients and wastes, although passive transport systems would readily reach equilibrium and active transport systems would not be expected to be produced immediately upon encapsulation. Energy acquisition is problematic, since fatty acids membranes cannot generate a proton gradient. Membranes composed of unsaturated fatty acids or phospholipids can generate proton gradients, but would not be expected to have existed in early earth environments. Virtually all studies that have examined membrane growth and division have used unsaturated fatty acid membranes, which would not have been present on the early earth. Because of this problem, these studies have questionable relevance to the origin of life on earth. 4)

While a wide range of amphiphilic compounds that could serve as lipid components for primitive biological membranes self-assemble into bilayers, this self-assembly process requires “just right” conditions and “just right” molecular components. It is unlikely that such conditions would exist or persist for long time frames on early Earth. 5

1) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2926753/
2) http://exploringorigins.org/fattyacids.html
3) http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/deamer1.html
4) http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/origin_membranes.html#n07
5) http://www.reasons.org/articles/biotic-borders-cell-membranes-under-scrutiny

 

[Rumraket]

Take away the cell membrane and the cell dies. That's it, right there the cell is shown to be irreducibly complex. Does that mean it could not evolve or originate naturally? No.
.

So what evolved first. The cell membrane, or the parts which it keeps inside ?

Read this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23260134
The origin of membrane bioenergetics.
Lane N, Martin WF.

Abstract
Harnessing energy as ion gradients across membranes is as universal as the genetic code. We leverage new insights into anaerobe metabolism to propose geochemical origins that account for the ubiquity of chemiosmotic coupling, and Na(+)/H(+) transporters in particular. Natural proton gradients acting across thin FeS walls within alkaline hydrothermal vents could drive carbon assimilation, leading to the emergence of protocells within vent pores. Protocell membranes that were initially leaky would eventually become less permeable, forcing cells dependent on natural H(+) gradients to pump Na(+) ions. Our hypothesis accounts for the Na(+)/H(+) promiscuity of bioenergetic proteins, as well as the deep divergence between bacteria and archaea.

It completely bypasses all of your useless copy-pasta.

 

[Deleted member 619]

What's a lipid, Jireh?

Here's a better question: How did your god get the first cell to work?

Your personal incredulity is neither an argument against evolution, nor for your pathetic masturbation fantasy.

 

[Rumraket]

Submarine hydrothermal systems (SHSs) have been thought of as a suitable environment for the origin of life subsequent to the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules. However, it has been pointed out that bioorganic molecules, such as amino acids, are easily degraded at a high temperature, and thus not likely to survive for the next step of chemical evolution in a SHS environment.


http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/MillerHighTemp.pdf

Why do you keep copy-pasting this shit? I have already shown this to be irrelevant because it is based on Black Smoker type hydrothermal vents that run up to 400 degrees Centigrade

The quotemine you have there is irrelevant to alkaline hydrothermal vents that run from around 40 to 70 degrees centigrade. So no, the amino acids and other organic compounds would NOT be degraded at those temperatures.

It would seem that the difference between you and me is that I actually read your entire post, remember what you write, and can explain what is wrong with it, if anything.

You on the other hand is just mindlessly copy-pasting the same stuff over and over again, completely ignoring when something has been pointed out to you is wrong or mistaken. Why do you keep citing a scenario for the origin of amino acids and biomolecules that nobody here believes or advocates? Why?

 

[Rumraket]

Submarine hydrothermal systems (SHSs) have been thought of as a suitable environment for the origin of life subsequent to the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules. However, it has been pointed out that bioorganic molecules, such as amino acids, are easily degraded at a high temperature, and thus not likely to survive for the next step of chemical evolution in a SHS environment.


http://physwww.mcmaster.ca/~higgsp/3D03/MillerHighTemp.pdf

Why do you keep copy-pasting this shit? I have already shown this to be irrelevant because it is based on Black Smoker type hydrothermal vents that run up to 500 degrees Centigrade

The quotemine you have there is irrelevant to alkaline hydrothermal vents that run from around 40 to 100 degrees centigrade. So no, the amino acids and other organic compounds would NOT be degraded at those temperatures.

It would seem that the difference between you and me is that I actually read your entire post, remember what you write, and can explain what is wrong with it, if anything.

You on the other hand is just mindlessly copy-pasting the same stuff over and over again, completely ignoring when something has been pointed out to you is wrong or mistaken. Why do you keep citing a scenario for the origin of amino acids and biomolecules that nobody here believes or advocates? Why?

In fact, I completely forgot how utterly disgusting and how big and fat a lie that quotemine of yours is. As I pointed out the last time you brought that disgusting quotemine:

This has been shown experimentally to be irrelevant. The SHS they talk about in this paper are Black Smoker type systems, that run up from 200 degrees C to as much as 400 degrees Celcius. Yes, under such conditions amino acids are destroyed.

But wait, you skipped the rest of the abstract: http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/130004153067

Submarine hydrothermal systems (SHSs) have been thought of as a suitable environment for the origin of life subsequent to the abiotic synthesis of organic molecules. However, it has been pointed out that bioorganic molecules, such as amino acids, are easily degraded at a high temperature, and thus not likely to survive for the next step of chemical evolution in a SHS environment. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the main compounds generated abiotically at the first stage of chemical evolution are not "free" amino acid monomers but amino acid precursors with high molecular weights, i.e., complex combined amino acids. In this study, we tested the stability of complex combined amino acids, which were abiotically synthesized from a simulated primitive Earth atmosphere with proton irradiation, in a high-temperature and high-pressure environment compared with that of monomeric amino acids. Complex combined amino acids preserved more amino acids (including amino acid precursors that give amino acids after acid hydrolysis) than free amino acids after heating in simulated SHS environments. Our results suggest the possibility that complex organics prebiotically synthesized by cosmic rays could serve as primitive materials of chemical evolution at hydrothermal systems on primitive Earth.<i></i>

This is amazing to me, because according to the religion you advocate for, god has supposedly directly commanded you to refrain from lying. And here you are, lying by omission. Deliberate omission. You left the latter part of the quote out on purpose even though you knew it would ruin your argument.

You are a truly shitty human being and you disgust me. Typical christian with no morals.

 

[Alligoose]

Is it just me, or is this poster merely trying to get views on his site? He's not actually adding much of any discussion. Just lengthy PRATT copypasta. I'm really disappointed.

 

[Alligoose]

Rumraket, eloquently put. This is willful dishonesty, and clearly exposes that the poster cannot possibly believe in his own position. Or, if he does, it is out of sheer, willful ignorance.

Why... Why would anyone want to hold that view?

And billions of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus raise their hands...

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Rumraket, eloquently put. This is willful dishonesty, and clearly exposes that the poster cannot possibly believe in his own position. Or, if he does, it is out of sheer, willful ignorance.

Why... Why would anyone want to hold that view?

And billions of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus raise their hands...

Human need for certainty - some have a greater need of it than others.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Rumraket]

Rumraket, eloquently put. This is willful dishonesty, and clearly exposes that the poster cannot possibly believe in his own position. Or, if he does, it is out of sheer, willful ignorance.

I think we often make the mistake of thinking these people "can't really believe" what they say.

No, they really believe it. In fact they believe it so intensely it has made them sick. They have a debilitating disease of the mind. Religion has made them sick and they need treatment from mental health professionals.

Very intense religious beliefs, in my opinion, should be classified as a type of mental health disorder. I think it is a form of psychosis.

When one believes so much that one elects to simply pick single sentences out of a larger whole that argues the diametrically opposite to that which has been snipped, then one is sick to the point of being mentally disabled on a particular topic, and in need of treatment by men and women in white coats at an institution for the clinically insane.

 

[Alligoose]

Greetings,

Rumraket, eloquently put. This is willful dishonesty, and clearly exposes that the poster cannot possibly believe in his own position. Or, if he does, it is out of sheer, willful ignorance.

Why... Why would anyone want to hold that view?

And billions of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus raise their hands...

Human need for certainty - some have a greater need of it than others.

Kindest regards,

James

But surely, you must know that you're wrong when you quote mine. You pick, you choose... but you've at least read the portions disagreeing with your beliefs.

I can understand the willful dishonesty of the likes of the hovinds, the ray comforts, the mega churches... There's profit to be had, after all. But on the individual, non-profiteering level... I have a difficult time understanding. Which, I guess, is partly why I'm here. To gain greater understanding and enlightenment.

 

[Alligoose]

Rumraket, eloquently put. This is willful dishonesty, and clearly exposes that the poster cannot possibly believe in his own position. Or, if he does, it is out of sheer, willful ignorance.

I think we often make the mistake of thinking these people "can't really believe" what they say.

No, they really believe it. In fact they believe it so intensely it has made them sick. They have a disease of the mind. Religion has made them sick and they need treatment from mental health professionals.

Very intense religious beliefs, in my opinion, should be classified as a type of mental health disorder. I think is a form of psychosis. When one believes so much that one elects to simply pick single sentences out of a larger whole that argues the diametrically opposite to that which has been snipped, then one is sick to the point of being mentally disabled on a particular topic, and in need of treatment.

To peer into the mind of these people, just for a second, would be fantastic. They read it...but does it register at all? Or do they gloss over it like boring dialogue in a Dan Brown or Grisham novel?

This isn't meant to be condescending. This is genuine concern. If one does this while defending their beliefs, what else does one selectively interpret? This is dangerous.

 

[Rumraket]

I think we often make the mistake of thinking these people "can't really believe" what they say.

No, they really believe it. In fact they believe it so intensely it has made them sick. They have a disease of the mind. Religion has made them sick and they need treatment from mental health professionals.

Very intense religious beliefs, in my opinion, should be classified as a type of mental health disorder. I think is a form of psychosis. When one believes so much that one elects to simply pick single sentences out of a larger whole that argues the diametrically opposite to that which has been snipped, then one is sick to the point of being mentally disabled on a particular topic, and in need of treatment.

To peer into the mind of these people, just for a second, would be fantastic. They read it...but does it register at all? Or do they gloss over it like boring dialogue in a Dan Brown or Grisham novel?

This isn't meant to be condescending. This is genuine concern. If one does this while defending their beliefs, what else does one selectively interpret? This is dangerous.

I agree and as one who does not, I hope, suffer from this issue it is absolutely baffling to me how it might work. I am also both concerned, curious and slightly scared at the same time.

Imagine having nutbags like this in positions of extreme power, like having the authority to launch nuclear wepons. What happens if their religious delusions suddenly make them think SATAN or something has taken over a foreign government?