Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 11:23 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  So, "conceivable and makes a lot of sense but can't be shown or demonstrated or identified" is valid when it comes to an intelligent designer, but not when it comes to abiogenesis? Especially when the basic principles of abiogenesis CAN be demonstrated, but the underlying principles of the designer cannot?

As said, abiogenesis is a failed hypothesis.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-ab...impossible

1. In Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

2. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

3. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

4. If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning.

5.The sugar found in the backbone of both DNA and RNA, ribose, has been particularly problematic, as the most prebiotically plausible chemical reaction schemes have typically yielded only a small amount of ribose mixed with a diverse assortment of other sugar molecules.

6. all the peptide links to form a proptein must be alpha-peptide bonds, not some mix of alpha and epsilon,beta, and gamma bonds


http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

"The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."


7.amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?

8. Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.


Quote:Skimmed it. Deceptive title aside, the argument isn't that it's impossible, the argument is that it's improbable.

No, the argument is that its literally IMPOSSIBLE.

Quote:The half-an-eye argument? Darwin proposed a plausible (and fairly correct) means of an eye evolving in Origins, his original publication on the subject, before any criticism of evolution could even begin!

Oh , so you stick to biology that was proposed 150 years back ? LOL.....

Quote:And it doesn't include "half an eye". Again, this is a neutered model of evolution, a straw man that you attack because you're too cowardly to face the real thing.

big words, hah ?? i bet you dont even know the science.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1638-ey...lex-system

educate yourself, before it gets worse !! Laugh out load

Quote: That people like you persist in this argument is the strongest evidence that you don't understand evolution...

yeah, but you do, right ?? Dunning Kruger much ?!! Rolleyes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 01:12 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
"However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen."

I am so surprised that you don't know what you're talking about [/sarcasmfont] Shocking

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 01:54 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 12:50 PM)Godexists Wrote:  
(17-07-2015 07:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The question is irrelevant. "Arising" "making" and "creating" are *action* verbs. To have an action, one must already have (space)-time. Time as a dimension did not exist (as far as we now know) until this universe existed. Until we do know something about what may or may not be external to this universe, (or whether that notion even makes any sense at all), one cannot use action verbs in that context. The very notion of a god "creating" somthing refutes it's "eternal" character, as it places a timestamp in an eternal past and an eternal future. The notion of "creation" is incompatible with eternity.

So sad. Too bad. Time for Plan B.

Facepalm

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig...ation.html

the cause of the Big Bang operated at to, that is, simultaneously (or coincidentally{1}) with the Big Bang. Philosophical discussions of causal directionality routinely treat simultaneous causation, the question being how to distinguish A as the cause and B as the effect when these occur together at the same time [Dummett and Flew (1954); Mackie (1966); Suchting (1968-69); Brier (1974), pp. 91-98; Brand (1979)].{2} Even on a mundane level, we regularly experience simultaneous causation;

You completely misunderstand the point. In order for a creator to create, it must have the intent to cause, and THEN cause, AND causality must already be in place, as an operant principle. How could a deity cause causation. Your word salad is meaningless.

Abiogenessis is hardly a "failed theory" You are just totally ignorant of experts in he field. Here is a Nobel winner presenting, and you cannot refute one thing he says.
(And even IF abiogenesis were a failed, that in no way justifies a leap to a "god of the gaps" argument that YOUR deity done it.)

Fail. Try harder.




Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-07-2015, 02:26 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
Ugh. I so want to jump in when I see stuff like that "no ozone" post. We know damned well that there was no ozone because of the lack of oxygen. Land life had to wait in the safety of the ocean for most of the history of life on earth before there was enough oxygen from photosynthetic sea life to provide the necessary screen that allowed land to be colonized. That is exactly what we find in the fossil record.

So when they say, "This is a problem for evolutionists", it just makes me want to scream!

You can't be THAT dense, acting like it's something no one thought of. You can't! So either you're so delusional as to be wholly unreachable by logic/reason (or, really the English language), or else you're a troll.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-07-2015, 02:31 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 06:56 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Proposing intelligent design is not a argument of ignorance. We know that intelligent minds are capable of projecting complex machines where ideas of problem solutions are required. Intelligent minds are able to store large quantities of information into small spaces, computer chips are a good example.
How do you have an intelligent mind without anything to observe, without data or information?
How do you have an intelligent mind without a biological brain?
How do you have an intelligent thought without space or time?

How does an intelligent mind interact with existence without first being part of existence?

How do you detect/observe this godly intelligent mind? How do you observe any evidence that this godly intelligent mind is capable of creating dna? What would that evidence present as? Do we ask god to create a unicorn and then video tape him as he does it?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
17-07-2015, 02:42 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2015 02:55 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 06:56 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Proposing intelligent design is not a argument of ignorance. We know that intelligent minds are capable of projecting complex machines where ideas of problem solutions are required. Intelligent minds are able to store large quantities of information into small spaces, computer chips are a good example.

It's no argument at all. Your attempt here has the most basic flaw that all children learn in Logic 101.

It's the same as :
Shoes CAN be red.
I see some red shoes.
ALL shoes therefore are red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

You cannot assume ALL complex things are made by intelligent minds just because SOME can be.

We know this universe evolves complex things spontaneoously, (Choas Theory). Apparently YOU are ignorant of this fact. You are very ignorant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
17-07-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(16-07-2015 06:56 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design

[stuff...]

ok, so why did your god, who so very cleverly designed this marvellous chemical mechanism decide it was a good idea to design an insect whose life cycle relies on burrowing into the subcutaneous tissues of humans, occasionally crossing into subconjunctival tissues of the eye?

Loa loa filariasis

As Stephen Fry said on this issue, "How dare you."

That is one twisted designer.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 02:56 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2015 03:01 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  http://elshamah.heavenforum.org/t1279-ab...impossible

1. In Miller’s experiment he was careful to make sure there was no oxygen present. If oxygen was present, then the amino acids would not form. However, if oxygen was absent from the earth, then there would be no ozone layer, and if there was no ozone layer the ultraviolet radiation would penetrate the atmosphere and would destroy the amino acids as soon as they were formed. So the dilemma can be summed up this way: amino acids would not form in an atmosphere with oxygen and amino acids would be destroyed in an atmosphere without oxygen.

Okay, I already addressed the reducing atmosphere of the early earth, but since I've decided to take the bait and address this, here you go:

Those silly scientists just keep thinking Miller-Urey is legitimate. Even the "radicals" at the National Institutes of Health and the Royal Society.

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  2. The next problem concerns the so-called handedness of the amino acids. Because of the way that carbon atoms join up with other atoms, amino acids exist in two forms—the right-handed form and the left-handed form. Just as your right hand and left hand are identical in all respects except for their handedness, so the two forms of amino acids are identical except for their handedness. In all living systems only left-handed amino acids are found. Yet Miller’s experiment produced a mixture of right-handed and left-handed amino acids in identical proportions. As only the left-handed ones are used in living systems, this mixture is useless for the evolution of living systems.

Now that's just silly. It's not antimatter. Both are produced. Of course! Right-handed simply doesn't link up with left-handed, that's all. Being all one-handed supports life evolving from a small, localized early group. If we found both types of life on earth, it would mean that proto-life evolved independently in two spots on the planet. It'd be more shocking than what we do find. Which is exactly what one would expect, if one were honest.

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  3. Another major problem for the chemical evolutionist is the origin of the information that is found in living systems. There are various claims about the amount of information that is found in the human genome, but it can be conservatively estimated as being equivalent to a few thousand books, each several hundred pages long. Where did this information come from?

What?! That doesn't even make sense. Life hands its information down to the next generation. Every time, it changes, a little bit. Sometimes new information is added, often in the form of a gene-duplication (which does nothing), followed by the evolution of one of those genes into a new form which does something new. There are also transposons, recombination, endogenous retroviruses, and a host of other ways to "add new information". Again, what we see is exactly what one would expect, and is apparently only a surprise to people who don't understand how DNA works.

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  4. If the many instructions that direct an animal’s or plant’s immune system had not been preprogrammed in the organism’s genetic system when it first appeared on earth, the first of thousands of potential infections would have killed the organism. This would have nullified any rare genetic improvements that might have accumulated. In other words, the large amount of genetic information governing the immune system could not have accumulated in a slow, evolutionary sense.a Obviously, for each organism to have survived, all this information must have been there from the beginning.

Also nonsense. The immune system functions to protect from invading organisms. The early organisms wouldn't have had to worry about that until they got complex enough to get invaded. As the "evolutionary arms race" of invaders vs. invaded got going, they developed ever-increasing methods of attack and defense. Again, exactly what we'd expect to find. There is absolutely nothing in evolution that says it all had to be there as-is, today... that's a red herring and a strawman argument in one.

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  5.The sugar found in the backbone of both DNA and RNA, ribose, has been particularly problematic, as the most prebiotically plausible chemical reaction schemes have typically yielded only a small amount of ribose mixed with a diverse assortment of other sugar molecules.

Here, I'll let the radicals over at NASA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography tell you about this one.

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  6. all the peptide links to form a proptein must be alpha-peptide bonds, not some mix of alpha and epsilon,beta, and gamma bonds

*sigh* Same answer as the right/left handedness. Why does it shock you that out of several options, life went only one of those ways, and since all life is descended from common ancestry, we kept that way?

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  "The first paradox is the tendency of organic matter to devolve and to give tar. If you can avoid that, you can start to try to assemble things that are not tarry, but then you encounter the water problem, which is related to the fact that every interesting bond that you want to make is unstable, thermodynamically, with respect to water. If you can solve that problem, you have the problem of entropy, that any of the building blocks are going to be present in a low concentration; therefore, to assemble a large number of those building blocks, you get a gene-like RNA -- 100 nucleotides long -- that fights entropy. And the fourth problem is that even if you can solve the entropy problem, you have a paradox that RNA enzymes, which are maybe catalytically active, are more likely to be active in the sense that destroys RNA rather than creates RNA."

Please email this information to Dr. Catharine Neish at the Goddard Spaceflight Center, because you clearly understand this stuff better than she does. Rolleyes

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  7.amino acids and sugars combine and destroy each other. In lab experiments the component chemicals are neatly separated from one another. How is this possible in a primitive ocean?

What? Then what the fuck is a glycoprotein?

(17-07-2015 01:05 PM)Godexists Wrote:  8. Synthesis vs destruction - For chemical bonds to form there needs to be an external source of energy. Unfortunately, the same energy that creates the bonds is much more likely to destroy them. In the famous Miller experiment (1953) that synthesized amino acids, a cold trap is used to selectively isolate the reaction products. Without this, the would be no products. This poses a challenge to simplistic early earth schemes where lightning simply strikes a primitive ocean. Where is the "trap" in such an ocean? Also, the creation of amino acids by a chemist in a laboratory is still much different from forming self-replicating life.

Again, this is one you're going to have to explain to the scientists at NASA, because you're clearly better-informed than they are. Rolleyes

Are we seeing a picture, here? Will you admit that you've presented not only poor data, but what amounts to gobbletygook, designed to fool people who don't know science with some pseudoscientific gobbletygook that only sounds good to the ignorant seeking comfort for their ignorance?

Will you even read the articles I posted? Or are we just coming down to the very most basic of assertions of Creationists:

[Image: a61a18e469c75e98902260916fc6ffe0.jpg]

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
17-07-2015, 02:59 PM
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 02:42 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-07-2015 06:56 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Proposing intelligent design is not a argument of ignorance. We know that intelligent minds are capable of projecting complex machines where ideas of problem solutions are required. Intelligent minds are able to store large quantities of information into small spaces, computer chips are a good example.

It's no argument at all. Your attempt here has the most basic flaw that all children learn in Logic 101.

It's the same as :
Shoes CAN be red.
I see some red shoes.
ALL shoes therefore are red.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization

You cannot assume ALL complex things are made by intelligent minds just because SOME can be.

We know this universe evolves complex things spontaneoously, (Choas Theory). Apparently YOU are ignorant of this fact. You are very ignorant.

Forgive me if this has been covered but from godexists quote up above I couldn't help but respond.

The argument for intelligent design makes two assumptions, both of which are wrong. The first is that living organisms are perfectly formed. Unfortunately for the argument, and for living creatures, this just isn’t so. Our bodies have many design flaws that no engineer would have allowed. For example, the mammalian laryngeal nerve, which connects the brain to the larynx, does so via a detour around the aorta. In giraffes, it takes over fifteen feet of nerve length to cover the few inches from brain to larynx. Would you choose to loop an extension cord through the middle of your kitchen and back to a plug six inches from the end of your toaster?
Besides, arguing that creatures are perfectly designed for their environments points to a lack of imagination in my opinion. If dolphins were really perfectly designed for their watery environment, wouldn’t they have gills? Or extendable snorkels?

The second assumption is that even if the design is poor, it’s still the only explanation for how living things came to look the way they do. Wrong again. There’s a much better explanation for the diversity of life, and that is evolution. It’s thanks to our common ancestry with fish that our laryngeal nerves shoot off in the wrong direction and have to make a u-turn. In fish, this nerve goes to the last of the gills at the back of the head. As mammals evolved, the gills moved around and became other organs (such as the larynx) but the laryngeal nerve still had to start out in its original direction toward the bottom of the neck.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-07-2015, 02:59 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2015 03:20 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design
(17-07-2015 02:53 PM)ArchibaldFunkdust Wrote:  
(16-07-2015 06:56 AM)Godexists Wrote:  Chromosome condensation, amazing evidence of design

[stuff...]

ok, so why did your god, who so very cleverly designed this marvellous chemical mechanism decide it was a good idea to design an insect whose life cycle relies on burrowing into the subcutaneous tissues of humans, occasionally crossing into subconjunctival tissues of the eye?

Loa loa filariasis

As Stephen Fry said on this issue, "How dare you."

That is one twisted designer.

Archi

This "loving god" also *designed* brain tumors (astrocytomas) that have "fingers" that grow down into human (children's) brains, and can eventually burrow out the ears and into eyes into huge gross masses. Now THAT is 'intelligent" design. Those evil babies. Weeping
http://www.abta.org/brain-tumor-informat...stoma.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: