Darwin in Context

by hamilcarr 33 Replies latest social current

• 

  Anti-Christ

  I'll try to add some clarification on some common misunderstandings.

  The creationist/ ID design argument is not that: "any type of complexity or intelligence in existence needed a designer". Which would of course logically require any complex or intelligent creator to themself have needed a creator.

  But instead the argument is (for example): "The origin of complexity [complex systems composed of specified componet parts] from non-complexity requires, or is best explained as the result of intelligent design." Or "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" etc. There is no logical requirement in these arguments for the designer to themself also have an origin, (or even be composed of componet parts), hense no need according to the same argument for the designer to also have had a designer.

  (The argument is then also supported by design theorists with specific scientific and observational evidence.)

  ??? I sincerely do not see the logic in this argument, maybe I did not understand, please clarify as I explain what I understand.

  The creator is not composed of complex parts, so no need for a creator of the creator because he/she/it is not complex??? If complexity is best explain by the existence of an intelligent designer why would this designer not be complex just because you say so? I really don't get it.
• 

  hooberus

  Lets start with the simpler example: "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" Is there anything in this statement that requires the designer to also need a designer?

  If not why not?
• 

  SacrificialLoon

  Lol genetic entropy. If anything the entropy should decrease because of energy input from the sun and geothermal activity from which life gets its energy. The biosphere is not a closed system.

  Entropy and thermodynamics sure are fancy sounding words though!
• 

  Anti-Christ

  Lets start with the simpler example: "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" Is there anything in this statement that requires the designer to also need a designer?

  If not why not?

  I believe that the statement "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" is only a statement, it does not prove that an intelligent designer has no origin. If an intelligence is necessary for the origin of life from non-life then what about the origin of the intelligence? Is this not a logical question?
• 

  hamilcarr

  Very well then, you have shown the problem to be solved. Simply define a few dipeptides as life, and then document the formation of a few of them. Then pronounce the issue of the "origin of life from non-life" in the context of creation-evolution issue to thus be "explained". Thank you for wasting my time.

  I invite you to give a clear definition of "life" in order to discuss the aformentioned testability of creation science, if time allows of course. We're all busy people, aren't we?
• 

  hamilcarr

  But instead the argument is (for example): "The origin of complexity [complex systems composed of specified componet parts] from non-complexity requires, or is best explained as the result of intelligent design." Or "an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life" etc. There is no logical requirement in these arguments for the designer to themself also have an origin, (or even be composed of componet parts), hense no need according to the same argument for the designer to also have had a designer.

  According to your argument, darwinism (complexity out of non-complexity) abiogenesis (life from non-life) need a designer.

  Creation of species, otoh, being the origin of complexity out of complexity, life out of life, doesn't?
• 

  Deputy Dog

  ham

  I like, for instance, Wächtershauser's iron-sulfur world theory with its brief recipe for life:

  Show me the money. The Origin-of-Life Prize ®

  I invite you to give a clear definition of "life" in order to discuss the aformentioned testability of creation science, if time allows of course. We're all busy people, aren't we?

  Here's a place to start.

  From someone who is willing to put their money where their mouth is.

  http://lifeorigin.org/

  1. Delineate itself from its environment through the production and maintenance of a membrane equivalent, most probably a rudimentary or quasi-active-transport membrane necessary for selective absorption of nutrients, excretion of wastes, and overcoming osmotic and toxic gradients,

  2. Write, store, and pass along into progeny prescriptive information (instruction) needed for organization; provide instructions for energy derivation and for needed metabolite production and function; symbolically encode and communicate functional message through a transmission channel to a receiver/decoder/destination/effector mechanism; integrate past, present and future time into its biological prescriptive information (instruction) content,

  3. Bring to pass the above recipe instructions into the production or acquisition of actual catalysts, coenzymes, cofactors, etc.; physically orchestrate the biochemical processes/pathways of metabolic reality; manufacture and maintain physical cellular architecture; establish and operate a semiotic system using "signal molecules"

  4. Capture, transduce, store, and call up energy for utilization (work),

  5. Actively self-replicate and eventually reproduce, not just passively polymerize or crystallize; pass along the apparatus and "know-how" for homeostatic metabolism and reproduction into progeny,

  6. Self-monitor and repair its constantly deteriorating physical matrix of bioinstruction retention/transmission, and of architecture,

  7. Develop and grow from immaturity to reproductive maturity,

  8. Productively react to environmental stimuli. Respond in an efficacious manner that is supportive of survival, development, growth, and reproduction, and

  9. Possess relative genetic stability, yet sufficient diversity to allow for adaptation and potential evolution.

  All classes of archaea, bacteria, and every other known free-living organism, meet all nine of the above criteria. Eliminate any one of the above nine requirements, and it remains to be demonstrated whether that system could remain "alive."

  RNA strands, DNA strands, prions, viroids, and viruses shall not be considered free-living organisms, since they fail to meet many of the above well-recognized characteristics of independent "life."
• 

  Satanus

  test
• 

  hamsterbait

  Darwinism is the ONLY plausible explanation of how the species diversified after the FLOOD that creationists believe in.

  The timescale they require is so short they are actually making total FOOLS of themselves.

  seven pairs of birds produce Ostrich, Kiwi, Flighteless Herons in the Galapagos,

  Two Marsupials etc,

  Two mice etc

  Two cats.

  The "Origin of Species" is a book on just that - how life achieved such diversity. Not how life arose.

  The creationists know it is so successfully undermining their position they want to silence it.

  HB
• 

  inkling

  "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Human Genome"

  Everything is a mystery when your eyes are squeezed shut