Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 6  7  8 

 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


The Biochemistry Challenge to Darwin By John Dale Dunn, MD, JD

quote:

The life functions of a single human cell, as described by Dr. Cherry, are far more complex than the world's most capable supercomputer, and impossible for man to duplicate using non-living materials ... The DNA code is primary, but the structures and functions for which it codes must appear ahead of time for its initial self-assembly and subsequent survival, an impossibility, because that would require the pre-existence of DNA ahead of the first strand of DNA.

What we know about cellular anatomy and physiology makes a theory of self-assembly irrational, because it is impossible genetically and biochemically. Self-assembled cellular life is an irrational idea that is the basis for an atheistic explanation for life's origin, but which cannot overcome the circular causation problem. The science leads Dr. Cherry to the conclusion that living things must be the product of undiscovered magic, or by rational design which was not random or accidental. Dr. Cherry asserts Atheistic claims for self-generated life require a magical or religious-like faith that contradicts the scientific evidence, observations revealing a design and arguing for a designer, a Creator, belief compatible with science. [Note: What he is saying here at the end of the long, compound sentence is that we need a scientific philosophy compatible with a Creator. I agree.]

I don’t know the nature or identity of the designer, but I must posit design when I see it. Dr. Cherry makes a strong case for design.



The linked article is short, but good science. Everyone should read it.

This falls within the realm of "origin of life" studies. Definitive work has been done by Dr. Stephen Meyer (Signature in the Cell) and Dr. James Tour:



Last edited by RedQ, 11/27/2019, 2:24 pm
11/27/2019, 2:09 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


This argument is a little like looking at an arch and saying that since the arch won't stand up unless all of its parts are in place, it must have been created complete in one instant.

Image

In the case of biological components, they evolved together in a manner similar to how an arch is supported by other means as it is being constructed.

In any case, all of this is unnecessary. I have figured out how the universe could have been created in a manner compatible with genesis:

Image
A Plausible Biblical Young Earth Creation Theory

It is a triviality that we should be ready to move past and away from.

Last edited by Spikosauropod, 11/27/2019, 4:17 pm
11/27/2019, 4:13 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


This idea was first expressed by set/ai at KAI in a response on one of my threads. I find it a persuasive possibility, i.e. calculate all possible parameters and then a suite is selected when it gives rise to conscious observers.

Your model still doesn't answer the origin of life issue (unless I missed it which I certainly could have). I didn't read your post again, but even if the idea of a quantum collapse turns out to be true, there has to be a path that the resulting Universe followed, all consistent with physical laws. However, there probably had to be a cheat or two in their somewhere, and that's the Hand of God.

That you treat the issue of the origin of life as trivial is not very reassuring.

11/27/2019, 4:31 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

However, there probably had to be a cheat or two in their somewhere, and that's the Hand of God.


Not at all. Every possibility would have existed at once and the one that involved conscious beings coalesced. Humans can't wrap themselves around such a large set, but it would be no trouble for God. The divine "trick" would have been setting up a system that is triggered by the appearance of consciousness and then getting consciousness to appear. I have some ideas about that, but they are not complete.
11/27/2019, 4:39 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

Every possibility would have existed at once and the one that involved conscious beings coalesced.



You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. The attractiveness of set/ai's theory is that it is pretty consistent with science, in that the whole history of the Universe would have to calculated consistent with discoverable physical laws. It's a real cool puzzle that can keep us interested, probably forever.

There has to be a scientific explanation for the origin of life, which seems impossible now. The leading candidate is the cheat, the Hand of God. A second possibility is that life arose somewhere that was conducive for life (an environment never achieved on earth), and then spread by panspermia. The currently preferred solution is the multiverse, which is nonsense on stilts.



11/27/2019, 4:52 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

There has to be a scientific explanation for the origin of life, which seems impossible now.


Since the only "branch" that would coalesce would be one with conscious life, any number of improbable events could be contained in that branch. There were an uncountable number of mundane branches that did not coalesce.

Have you ever wondered why a Navy Seal is able to do things that seem inhuman? It is because the navy distills candidates until they get the ones who can do those things. Similarly, if you comb the beach long enough, you will find a rock that is a perfect sphere. It is not a good way to manufacture a ball for a bearing, but God has more patience than a human engineer.

The great miracle was in choosing the system, not in choosing how it would unfold. Keep in mind that the universe would much more likely have been an empty space with nothing in it or, if it contained anything, that contained only featureless objects that eternally bounced off of one another and never became anything. I wrote a short story centered on that idea:

Gillitron the Idiot and the Three Gamesters of Triskelion
11/27/2019, 5:12 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
RedQ Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderatorₗ

Registered: 11-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


I think you continue to fail to grasp the point. Although the system was modeled to obtain the desired result, still the result has to be consistent with the physical laws (I think so that we can discover and understand).

How did life originate? It seems impossible, and Darwinism doesn't work (i.e. random mutations). It was either a cheat or something we haven't discovered. Probably a cheat, an initial condition of the model. God first created a precursor of DNA and then calcualted all possible Universes. He may have had to add parameters as the testing went along until He finally got something to work. Viola! Us.
11/27/2019, 5:29 pm Link to this post PM RedQ Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

still the result has to be consistent with the physical laws


What physical laws? God did not create in a universe that already had physical laws. He created the physical laws themselves. The only thing that is inherently true is the law of non contradiction. All other truth stems from that. Curiously, God is equivalent to that law.
11/27/2019, 5:36 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 
Extropia DaSilva Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Moderator

Registered: 12-2017
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


There is consensus that DNA could not have been the original replicator. The majority of ‘origin of life’ researchers think RNA is the best contender. If you have a test-tube containing no RNA, just the raw materials for making RNA plus the QB replicase enzyme, those raw materials will spontaneously generate self-replicating RNA. You could argue that this is still a bit of a cheat due to the QB replicase enzyme needing to be present. Maybe one day we will discover how to make RNA from its building blocks without requiring QB Replicase. Or maybe one of the more fringe ideas in origins theory, such as Thomas Gold’s deep hot biosphere, Graham Cairns-Smith clay-crystal replicator, or some as-yet unthought of hypothesis, will discover how you can get cummulative selection started.

Even if we don’t discover the trick on our ‘lonely speck’ (to quote Carl Sagan’s description of earth from the vantage point of Saturn) we have to consider the resources that ‘origin’ researchers have compared to those available to the Universe.

Now, Darwinism deniers claim that the mathematical improbability of even the simplest replicator being created from ‘scratch’ is so very small that there could not have been enough time since the universe began 13.7 billion years ago for the number of ‘dice rolls’ needed to stand any chance of the right numbers coming up. But this of course assumes that the universe had a beginning. But actually, inflationary theory assumes no such thing. As string theorist Brian Green explained, “the inflationary bang is best thought of as an event that the preexisting universe experiences, but not necessarily as the event that created the universe”. Since theoretical physicists cant’t figure out a way in which the inflaton field decays completely, they adopted a model of ‘eternal inflation’ in which it decays in regions of an infinite spacetime but persists in others. So what we think of as ‘the’ universe is but an infinitesimal speck in a multiverse that is infinite in time and space.

I don’t like any Big Bang theory; I prefer the plasma cosmology/EU model. This too does not presume the universe is finite in either space or time. The position that this theory adopts is that “the universe is an unending transformation in flux whose previous states we are not privileged to know”. PC does not presume any ultimate beginning.

So really the universe has had infinite time in which to throw infinite dice. With endless time in which to play the odds anything can happen. Could a statue wave at you? Why yes. All it would take was for all the subatomic particles to happen to move in just the right way for this chance event to occur. It’s a gazillions to one chance and to finite beings like us, to whom a millions to one chance is almost the same as ‘no chance at all’, it seems absolutely impossible. But it is definitely in the realms of possibility when you have infinite time and chances.

So maybe the chances of cummulative selection starting from scratch (and btw, it need not be the case that life evolves from scratch and then cummulative selection gets going’ Cairns-Smith’s hypothesis shows we can imagine ways in which it happens precisely the other way around) are so very small that it is likely to happen only once in a region of space spanning 13.7 billion light years. If so, the infinitesimal resources we have stand no chance of making it happen. But that does not mean to say it’s not possible for the universe to make it happen. Because the universe is infinite and any chance, no matter how infinitesimal, WILL happen if there are infinite dice rolls.

11/28/2019, 2:57 am Link to this post PM Extropia DaSilva Blog
 
Spikosauropod Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Parliamentarian

Registered: 06-2007
Reply | Quote
Re: Another Scientific Challenge The Darwinist Can't Counter


quote:

With endless time in which to play the odds anything can happen.


However, no matter how long you roll a pair of dice, they will not come up 13. If the potential isn't there, it isn't there. The remarkable thing about the universe is that it is not degenerate.
11/28/2019, 12:12 pm Link to this post PM Spikosauropod
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 6  7  8 





You are not logged in (login)
Back To Top