A Bio Genesis

@kellyjay said
Okay and? If you don’t watch the whole thing you don’t know what was brought up!

I don't think you understand what he said. The main drag of the piece talked about the reactions but his main objection was the Maillard reaction. I presented a paper refuting that but you have said nothing about that.

@sonhouse said
So his bottom line is the need to identify examples of 'intelligent design'. Then goes on to say "WHEN" we have evidence of that then we go on from there, something like that. So the whole bottom line of his presentation is to inspire folks to look for evidence of 'intelligent design', NOO we are not talking about god here....Right.
The maillard reaction is his main thesis ...[text shortened]... Maillard_reaction/links/56928f3608aee91f69a7023f/Prebiotic-significance-of-the-Maillard-reaction.pdf

When you were skipping through that lecture did you grasp what he does for a living?

@kellyjay said
When you were skipping through that lecture did you grasp what he does for a living?

Opening argument. Minute 1:

"The origin of life is one of those big questions... it defines our identity. Depending on how you imagine life came from you're going to have different perspectives on what the human race is all about. If we're just highly-evolved pond scum, you're going to have one view. If you see yourself as a child of God you're going to have a totally different view. It's absolutely essential to civilization to get right."

He's completely wrong about this. We are both pond scum and children of God. It's scientifically intractable.

@sonhouse said
I don't think you understand what he said. The main drag of the piece talked about the reactions but his main objection was the Maillard reaction. I presented a paper refuting that but you have said nothing about that.

Yeah I don't think he watched it at all, as he appears unable to answer basic questions about the video's content.

@wildgrass said
Opening argument. Minute 1:

"The origin of life is one of those big questions... it defines our identity. Depending on how you imagine life came from you're going to have different perspectives on what the human race is all about. If we're just highly-evolved pond scum, you're going to have one view. If you see yourself as a child of God you're going to have a totally di ...[text shortened]... letely wrong about this. We are both pond scum and children of God. It's scientifically intractable.

Zzzz

@kellyjay said
Zzzz

Just out of curiosity, what was your goal in presenting these two dudes in a science forum? Did you think we would be convinced only GODIDIT? Or that science is too weak to be able to answer OOL questions? What?

@sonhouse said
Just out of curiosity, what was your goal in presenting these two dudes in a science forum? Did you think we would be convinced only GODIDIT? Or that science is too weak to be able to answer OOL questions? What?

No, I thought the interest in science would spark a conversation about the chemical reactions and wanted to hear how people here viewed it. I didn't have a GODIDIT agenda that is all you.

With respect to OOL, science doesn't have a testable theory any more than it does the beginning of all things so, I was not looking for anything there either. My goal was much simpler than all of those things. I did not except the number of people to show up with their heads up their a$$ acting as if they knew what was said in the lectures and pronounce them as propaganda conspiracy theories, with all refusing to watch the whole video.

I've been here around 15 years and hardly ever post on this board because I feel the things I like sharing and debating belong in spiritual board, so I limit my post here to questions I think you guys can shed some light on for me. Its worked out well, when I have a question and bring them here more times than not you guys come through.

@kellyjay said
No, I thought the interest in science would spark a conversation about the chemical reactions and wanted to hear how people here viewed it. I didn't have a GODIDIT agenda that is all you.

With respect to OOL, science doesn't have a testable theory any more than it does the beginning of all things so, I was not looking for anything there either. My goal was much simpler th ...[text shortened]... rked out well, when I have a question and bring them here more times than not you guys come through.

Don't look at me for organic chemistry questions! I am a semiconductor manufacturing machine hardware expert, electronics, mechanics, hydraulics, high vacuum, high voltage power supplies, high power RF supplies and receivers and the like, microscopes, coating thickness measuring tools but none of that has to do much with organic chemistry.

@sonhouse said
Don't look at me for organic chemistry questions! I am a semiconductor manufacturing machine hardware expert, electronics, mechanics, hydraulics, high vacuum, high voltage power supplies, high power RF supplies and receivers and the like, microscopes, coating thickness measuring tools but none of that has to do much with organic chemistry.

You know the difference between processes that engineering created that accomplish required work, and a unguided process without a purpose? Can you tell the difference?

@kellyjay said
You know the difference between processes that engineering created that accomplish required work, and a unguided process without a purpose? Can you tell the difference?

I can tell the difference;
An unguided process without a purpose generally leads to imperfections and/or arbitrary redundant features that only an idiot designer would make.
Examples;
What's the 'purpose' of the male nipple?
What's the 'purpose' of putting the blood blood vessels and the nerve connections for the human retina in front of it rather behind it where it wouldn't partly block the light especially in very dim light? (that would make a particularly stupid design!).
Why does a giraffe neck vagus nerve go from the brain loop around the heart and go back up the neck? (that would also make a particularly stupid design! see https://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2010/06/22/the-laryngeal-nerve-of-the-gir ).
What's the 'purpose' of the asymmetry of a flatfish?
etc.
Unless you assume those things were designed by a moron, all these thing indicated that a process without purpose created these structures.

@humy said
I can tell the difference;
An unguided process without a purpose generally leads to imperfections and/or arbitrary redundant features that only an idiot designer would make.
Examples;
What's the 'purpose' of the male nipple?
What's the 'purpose' of putting the blood blood vessels and the nerve connections for the human retina in front of it rather behind it where it wouldn ...[text shortened]... igned by a moron, all these thing indicated that a process without purpose created these structures.

Don't forget prostate gland wrapped around the urethra..

@humy said
I can tell the difference;
An unguided process without a purpose generally leads to imperfections and/or arbitrary redundant features that only an idiot designer would make.
Examples;
What's the 'purpose' of the male nipple?
What's the 'purpose' of putting the blood blood vessels and the nerve connections for the human retina in front of it rather behind it where it wouldn ...[text shortened]... igned by a moron, all these thing indicated that a process without purpose created these structures.

Really, you think things like that are bad design? How many lifeforms in your time have you designed so we can compare your work?

@humy said
I can tell the difference;
An unguided process without a purpose generally leads to imperfections and/or arbitrary redundant features that only an idiot designer would make.
Examples;
What's the 'purpose' of the male nipple?
What's the 'purpose' of putting the blood blood vessels and the nerve connections for the human retina in front of it rather behind it where it wouldn ...[text shortened]... igned by a moron, all these thing indicated that a process without purpose created these structures.

Have you read anything about your complaint about the eye in anything other than anti-creation publications to see if there are advantages?

An unguided process couldn't built anything with the level of complexity of life to even reach the level of having something like these to be called an imperfection or mistake.

@kellyjay said
Really, you think things like that are bad design?

No, because they aren't design. But if they were design then, yes, they surely would be bad design. For example, designing a giraffe neck vagus nerve to go from the brain to pointlessly loop around the heart and go back up the neck would be a very stupid thing to do that not even a half-wit of a human would likely do let alone a (hypothetical) all-knowing all-wise god!

How many lifeforms in your time have you designed so we can compare your work?

None; which is irrelevant. It only means it would be a very hard thing to create artificially. I also cannot create a whole mountain along with all its complex geology but that doesn't make me think an intelligence designed it; why would it?

Have you read anything about your complaint about the eye...

I don't complain about it. That's because I know it isn't design.

other than anti-creation publications

You mean the science of biology or anything other scientific facts just happen to coincidentally contradict your religion? Because that is what you are mostly referring to here by "anti-creation publications ".

...to see if there are advantages?

I have checked this. There are no advantages.

An unguided process couldn't built anything with the level of complexity of life

Evolution can because there is no upper limit to the complexity evolution can incrementally create over many millions of years.

@humy said
No, because they aren't design. But if they were design then, yes, they surely would be bad design. For example, designing a giraffe neck vagus nerve to go from the brain to pointlessly loop around the heart and go back up the neck would be a very stupid thing to do that not even a half-wit of a human would likely do let alone a (hypothetical) all-knowing all-wise god!
[quote] ...[text shortened]... is no upper limit to the complexity evolution can incrementally create over many millions of years.

As if you know!
You don't have a freaking clue, any more than you do about many other things.
You are speaking about the design of life, and you cannot speak to a single cell's beginning through chemical reactions. You are so wise, in your own eyes.