To Creationists

[Pyrotex]

Pyro- Please respect the positions of other posters without hostility....Personally I found your refutations of CW's points to be weak. CW raised a couple of credible issues, and you essentially said it is not a problem without offering an explanatory solution. CW identified a couple of individuals that agreed with his/her position, and you ignored that and asked for names. ....

Okay, I am guilty of (mild) sarcasm and hostility. I apologize. I have also not read every post in this entire thread. Mea culpa. But my main refutations of his points are not weak, but just from an un-anticipated direction.

 

If I claim that YOU personally have made the claim that (1) Big Foot is real and cuts your front yard -- and then I demonstrate that Big Foot is nothing more than an urban legend and offer evidence that you live in a high-rise and have no front yard -- what have I accomplished? Have I proved that you were wrong??

 

NO. Because you NEVER made claim (1) above. Claim (1) above is a figment of my imagination; or I picked it up from someone else who imagined it.

 

I could stack imaginary claim on top of imaginary claim. I could make them sound reasonably "scientific" and marginally plausible. I could even throw in a few irrelevant "facts" about people with large feet. But in the end, I still have accomplished nothing, because you NEVER made claim (1) above.

 

The gentleman in question has done precisely this in his essay against evolution. I simply pointed this out. And in my defense, I concluded that if the gentleman had done so little research that he did not know that most of the so-called evolution claims that he was mocking were NOT in fact the claims of evolution scientists, then perhaps he deserved a little poke in the ribs.

[Pyrotex]

...personal attacks are not tolerated...

What? Don't you believe in talking donkeys? The Bible specifically says that donkeys talk quite intelligently, and that when they do, it is always because we have violated God's will. ;)

[HydrogenBond]

I think both creationists and evolutionists are missing the same point. Genesis is not talking about physical creation of the universe, but about the evolution of the modern human mind as it begins to see the world around it for the first time as a modern human. This deduction is based on two things. The first is the parallel between genesis timing, 6000-7000 years ago, and the appearance of the first modern human civilizations.

 

The second is in the bible itself. It is the story of Cain and Abel. Abel was the herder of animals and Cain the tiller of the soil. Cain kills Abel or farming (needed for civilization) supersedes migratory pre-humans herders maybe stemming from the last Ice Age. When Cain is about to be exiled he says, "whoever shall come upon me shall kill me." The question become, who were these whoevers if only Adam, Eve and Cain are on the earth. They were the prehumans who had evolved on the earth, but who had not yet evolved into the modern human state of mind. God gives Cain a sign for protection. The bible loses track of Cain after that, but he probably lived on with the prehumans due to his sign of protection.

[Racoon]

God Created Evolution. ;)

the rest is science and faith...

[Biochemist]

Okay, I am guilty of (mild) sarcasm and hostility. I apologize. I have also not read every post in this entire thread. Mea culpa. But my main refutations of his points are not weak, but just from an un-anticipated direction....

Pyro, and an example of a weak response, I would include the following:

(2) Of the 100 amino acids only 20 are needed for life's proteins. The molecules come in two shapes "right handed" and left handed". If they formed by chance in theoretical organic soup then there should 1/2 of each type. No reason for either type to be preferred in living things. Of the 20 needed all are of left handed type!

Well, then obviously the prebiotic process that foreshadowed amino acid production centered around a left-handed molecule. All the aminos that it would need or produce would likewise be left-handed. Right-handed aminos would not be favored, so their production would never be increased by subsequent evolutionary processes.

You essentially responded that the issue raised by Crimsonwolf is not a problem because a "precondition" (that you did not describe or substantiate) established conditions for the unlikely event. If you do not have data to support the existence of this sort of precondition, it is a faith position. This is merely a different faith position than CrimsonWolf's, not a refutation. And there would be nothing "obvious" about the presumption of the precondition unless you had a bias based on your faith position.

 

Actually CW understated the complexity of the problem. There are not 100 potential amino acids, there are an infinitie number (both L and R) . Further, it looks as if the first life form definatively "selected" the correct 20 amino acids (or, alternatively, that all life forms that are not based on those exact 20 have gone extinct). That the first prokaryote apparently had the same fundamental machinery (nuleotides and amino acids) as the far more advanced phyla is indeed mysterious. To pass off this state of nature as "selected" may be a reasonable theoretical position, but is it far from obvious how the first life form would start with exactly the correct 20 amino acids, and that they could not be improved upon in the ensuing 3.5 billion years.

 

 

Yes, I did think your critique was weak, but I do appreciate you offering an apology (presumably to CW). Thank you.

[cwes99_03]

Far be it from me to side with Pyro, however, the point being made by him is that there could believably be a situation in which the existing conditions made for the production of chirally left-handed molecules instead of right handed, and life thus tended toward the use of these since they were in abundance.

 

Of course another argument that could fit into his above discourse is that both were originally equally available, but somewhere down the evolutionary process the conditions changed to make organisms composed of left-handed amino acids superior for survival.

 

Thus I identify the true strength and weakness of Evolution. It is a catch-all cover-all theory that says, "Hey anything is possible, and since my theory encompasses all possibilities, there is almost no possibility that I can't explain something with another conditional statement."

 

Of course we know that in the real world there are laws that define how nature must act, and that these laws according to scientists have been the same since the beginning of time and are uniform throughout the universe.

[Biochemist]

Far be it from me to side with Pyro, however, the point being made by him is that there could believably be a situation in which the existing conditions made for the production of chirally left-handed molecules instead of right handed, and life thus tended toward the use of these since they were in abundance....

Sure there could have been. Pyro's suggestion may well be believable, but if one were to do the probabilistic mathematics on creation of a preexistant synthesis environment that favors L amino acids, the numbers are probably even more unlikely. Do keep in mind that ths environment would have to exist before the first prokaryote. Does anyone know of a non-biotic chemical environement that favors L-amine acids in synthesis? And how about these particlar 20?

 

If Pyro's response to a legitimate probabilitic issue is to create an even more unlikely probabilitic solution, this sounds like a faith position, not a science position.

[Pyrotex]

Pyro, and an example of a weak response, I would include the following:...There are not 100 potential amino acids, there are an infinite number (both L and R). Further, it looks as if the first life form definatively "selected" the correct 20 amino acids ...far from obvious how the first life form would start with exactly the correct 20 amino acids, and that they could not be improved upon in the ensuing 3.5 billion years....Thank you.

You're welcome.

What makes you say that the 20 amino acids in Earth Life are the "correct ones"? Life is not a multiple-choice quiz. There is no way even in principle to determine which set of aminos is "correct" or "the best". We just got the set that we got.

 

Nor do we know which amino acids were first involved 3.5 BY ago. Coulda been different, coulda been the same. The natural selection of the current 20 may have changed 3.4 BY ago and we would have no way of knowing. But by the time Life really got started in a big way, whatever form of Life that had the best set (at that time) would have gone on to dominate the Earth, and establish forever that set for all future Life.

 

My original point still stands. If you set up impossible or ridiculous or flimsy "strawman" arguments and then knock em down, you haven't accomplished anything. On the other hand, if you assume (plausibly) that there had to be a natural solution, then any pseudo-natural solution you come up with -- that is impossible or ridiculous -- must not be a valid answer. You have to look elsewhere.

[Biochemist]

..What makes you say that the 20 amino acids in Earth Life are the "correct ones"?

Well, "correct" would be a poor choice of words. But the fact that those 20 amino acids comprise the totality of amino acids coded by DNA in all extant life forms (plant and animal) is interesting, and currently inexplicable. To my knowledge there are only 2 other amino acids discovered as protein constitutents, but they are synthesized after replication, not coded by DNA.

 

If we were going to suggest that the very first life form established the fundamental requirments for all subsequent higher phylogeny, it argues against the fundamental premise of natural selection. Further, if we argue that all life forms that previously existed with some other amino acid profile have gone extinct, it argues that there are no niches where a different amino acid profile could survive. Either is a dififcult argument. You are either saying that the 20 amino acids were not selected (Hmmm) or that any other amino acid profile was repressed over time (which defies logic, given the incredible heterogeneity of life forms).

...Nor do we know which amino acids were first involved 3.5 BY ago. Coulda been different, coulda been the same. The natural selection of the current 20 may have changed 3.4 BY ago and we would have no way of knowing.

If you want to argue that natural selection would rule out chemical infrastructure that does not necessarily express itself phenotypically, that is not natural selection. If you are going to argue that these 20 amino acids uniformly (across all life forms) have such a strong phenotype that they expunged all other amino acid profiles, you have to argue that all life forms converged to a single amino acid profile over time. That is, proto-prokaryotes that were originaly a 12, 21, 24, or 48 amino acid profiles converged to the current 20 amino acid profile, which coincidentally also happens to work best for higher mammals (etc). Does that sound to you like natural selection? Shouldn't natural selection diverge? Would all of the simpler creatures have been differentially expunged?

My original point still stands. If you set up impossible or ridiculous or flimsy "strawman" arguments and then knock em down, you haven't accomplished anything.

I did not see a ridiculous straw-man argument. I saw an issue. Apparently you did not.

On the other hand, if you assume (plausibly) that there had to be a natural solution...

Bingo. You assumed. That was my point. You have presumed a boundary of "natural" that is not suported by evidence. Without evidence, "natural" has no boundary.

[cwes99_03]

I know what you are saying.

Largely you are saying that in order to explain the complexity (by the way, each discovery is showing how much more complex the initial environment had to be for evolution to be possible) one has to keep making larger and larger assumptions that thousands of perameters had to be in place for life to have evolved.

You are saying that since the odds against evolution keep growing, that is clear evidence that Creation must be the answer. Honestly that is a sloppy and poorly thought up reasoning, standing on its own two feet. If you look at that on top of other evidence that takes belief in the supernatural, spiritual, or pseudo-scientific (whatever you want to call Creationist theory) then you are making a much more solid argument.

Truth be told you will never convince someone like Pyro who thinks he knows everything about everything in the Bible, and can say "look the universe is a seriously huge place and there are billions upon billions of planets out there, so the 1 in 20000000000000000 chance that evolution happened here seems more plausible when there are 20000000000000000000000000 planets out there."

[Biochemist]

I know what you are saying....

You are saying that since the odds against evolution keep growing, that is clear evidence that Creation must be the answer. ...

Acually, I was not arguing for any particular solution. I was arguing that it is not scientific to discharge real issues (in this case, the L amino acid probility issue) because you rule out the implications of the issue. There is no evidence of a preexisting state that would preferentially select for 20 specific L amin acids. If we assume that this environment existed (without evidence), that is philosophically identical to assuming heavenly intervention. If one were to allow for either scenario, that is science. If one assumes one or the other, that is bias.

 

Mine was not a Biblical discussion. Mine was defense of the scientific method, even if the defense results in inferences that are at odds with the prevailing Naturalism point of view. Data is data. Similarly, no data is no data.

[Pyrotex]

Well, "correct" would be a poor choice of words. But the fact that those 20 amino acids comprise the totality of amino acids coded by DNA in all extant life forms (plant and animal) is interesting, and currently inexplicable...

If it was a poor choice of words, it doesn't seem to prevent you from using equivalent wording again below. And your use of "inexplicable" seems bizarre. Sure, we would like to know "why" there are only 20 bio-aminos. I hope I live long enough to hear the answer. But the mere fact that we don't know yet, doesn't mean that some conspiracy is going on among scientists. Or, whatever it is you're trying to make it mean. I hear this rhetorical trick so often, I call it the "end of time" fallacy. You assume that THIS is the point where science should have all the answers, and since science doesn't, then OBVIOUSLY, we have to ...what? ;) look to the supernatural realm for our answers?

...If we were going to suggest that the very first life form established the fundamental requirments for all subsequent higher phylogeny, it argues against the fundamental premise of natural selection....

And pray tell, what is the "fundamental premise"? As originated, natural selection applied to living plants and animals in bounded eco-systems, competing for food and territory. You and I are talking chemicals. Amino acids. Aminos do not eat each other. They do not "compete". I think you're mis-using "natural selection" in the wrong context.

You are either saying that the 20 amino acids were not selected or that any other amino acid profile was repressed over time...you have to argue that all life forms converged to a single amino acid profile over time.

Actually, no I don't have to. There is at least another alternative one, far more plausible than any of the options you have given me. Funny that you overlooked it.

...current 20 amino acid profile, which coincidentally also happens to work best for higher mammals (etc)....

This is totally unwarranted. How do you know these 20 aminos work "best" for mammals? Have you created other mammals that use a different set? How many other sets of aminos have you created mammals out of, and how do they compare against each other in, say, size, life span, metabolism...? Poppycock.

You have presumed a boundary of "natural" that is not supported by evidence. Without evidence, "natural" has no boundary.

ROFLMAO! ;) I am not even going to answer that logic twister. But thanks for the laugh.

[Pyrotex]

...Largely you are saying that in order to explain the complexity ...one has to keep making larger and larger assumptions that thousands of perameters had to be in place for life to have evolved.

You are saying that since the odds against evolution keep growing, that is clear evidence that Creation must be the answer. Honestly that is a sloppy and poorly thought up reasoning, ...

Well said.

Truth be told you will never convince someone like Pyro who thinks he knows everything about everything in the Bible, ...

I really appreciate the kudo. Coming from you, that means something. However, I must admit, I do not know everything in the Bible. I only read Revelations once, and I didn't pay much attention. And c'mon! I'm not that hard to convince.

[Biochemist]

..Sure, we would like to know "why" there are only 20 bio-aminos. I hope I live long enough to hear the answer. But the mere fact that we don't know yet, doesn't mean that some conspiracy is going on among scientists. ...

Where are you getting this? I was making a simple point. The point was that your rejection (and I meant you personnally, not the scientific community) was biased, because you rejected some alternative without evidence. That was my only point, and I mistakenly strayed into elaborating on the validity of the issue, versus underlining the bias of your reponse.

[Pyrotex]

Where are you getting this? I was making a simple point. The point was that your rejection (and I meant you personnally, not the seicntific community) was biased, because you rejected some alternative without evidence. That was my only point, and I mistakenly strayed into elaborating on the validity of the issue, versus underlining the bias of your reponse.

Excuse me! I'm sorry! King's X!

You just seemed so adamant that the fact that science has not explained the "20 Amino Acids" conundrum yet, meant... something. It proved... whatever it was that you were arguing for. That this "inexplicable" conundrum was evidence for... (fill in the blank).

So, what DID you mean by that comment?

[ughaibu]

Any creation myth, including the early part of Genesis, fills a role as acknowledgement, ". . and last but not least a special thanks to God for creating the universe, without which this book might never have been written. ." It puzzles me that creationists, as presumably enthusiastic critics of the Bible, devote so much time to the details of this rather unimportant piece of the book. It certainly doesn't inspire in the potential reader any confidence about the value of investing the time required to read the rest.

[Biochemist]

You assume that THIS is the point where science should have all the answers, and since science doesn't, then OBVIOUSLY, we have to ...what? ;) look to the supernatural realm for our answers?

I assumed nothing of the sort. I don't understand what you are saying. I was saying that you EXCLUDE options in the absence of evidence. I was not arguing for a specific solution, just that you cannot exclude soloutions out of bias.

...And pray tell, what is the "fundamental premise"? As originated, natural selection applied to living plants and animals in bounded eco-systems, competing for food and territory. You and I are talking chemicals. Amino acids. Aminos do not eat each other. They do not "compete". ..

At last we agree on something. I was saying that amino acids cannot be "selected" unless they express themselves in a phenotype that demonstrates some environmental advantage. Likewise, amino acids profiels cannot be "deselected" unless they demonstrate a phenotype with an environmental disadvantage. If you are going to contend (as you suggested above) that there may mave been otheer amino acid profiles that hae gone extinct, you are suggesting that every other amino acid profile that ever surfaced demonstrated some phenotypical disadvantage. The other option is that only one has ever existed. I think those are the only two options, unless we find some life form that currently has different amino acids.

ROFLMAO! ;) I am not even going to answer that logic twister. But thanks for the laugh.

Glad you got a laugh. Now tell me why it was funny. I said that the boundary of "natural" is only limited by evidence. Apparently, you are suggesting that you can rule out specific solutions, even without evidence to exclude them. Most folks call that bias.