Originally posted by sonhouseI'm saying starting a process is just as important as maintaining one.
So evolution won't be valid in your eyes till we solve the riddle of how life could have started, and maybe generating actual life from non-life? Would that then satisfy you that evolution is correct?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat post was intended to show that the earliest cells did not need to have been particularly complicated. Since we are talking about something that happened of the order of 4,000 MYA the evidence is rather sketchy. But I don´t think your criticism that I´m using an already existing process really damages the scenario, as I´ve taken ingredients that can fairly easily come about.
I'll go over your post, but at first glance it seems you are doing what
is commoningly done by those that promote evolution, you start
in the middle of something established and say a little tweak here
could do it.
Kelly
One of the initial ingredients required, the lipid bi-layer, is observed to occur spontaneously. Auto-catalysing RNA molecules are harder, but there have been experiments conducted where auto-catalytic RNA molecules have been designed and produced. RNA bases can occur spontaneously in conditions designed to mimic the likely conditions on the early earth - adenine was shown to be produced by the heating of aqueous cyanide. I do not think that the entry point for my scenario can really be attacked on the grounds that the initial conditions are either so unlikely or so far advanced down the line of creation to be rendered non-explanatory. On the other hand there are plenty of problems with the RNA world hypothesis, which we aren´t going to solve in an internet forum debate.
What I was getting at is that you seem to be implying that a scientific explanation is essentially impossible due to never being able to find an entry point. The scenario I outlined shows it is possible to imagine a set of circumstances where early cells can form spontaneously from materials that would have been relatively abundant at the time. This is different from claiming that the scenario is actually what happened.
I feel a designer hypothesis runs into these problems even harder. Since your designer is presumably not going to pop into existence fully capable of getting some design done you start needing a designer for your designer.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI actually believe cells are quite complicated, as I have pointed out
That post was intended to show that the earliest cells did not need to have been particularly complicated. Since we are talking about something that happened of the order of 4,000 MYA the evidence is rather sketchy. But I don´t think your criticism that I´m using an already existing process really damages the scenario, as I´ve taken ingredients that ca ...[text shortened]... stence fully capable of getting some design done you start needing a designer for your designer.
throughout my time here, everything is coded, the structure, the
actions! Everything must be taken into account, the environment at
the start, the environment as time goes on since anything that goes
south in the environment could end the process completely! More
times than not when abiogenesis is discussed, almost without fail it is
presented as if most of the work is done and a small tweak is all that
is required to make it work. Sorry, I have not read your link yet, I
will this week.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayModern eukaryotic cells are incredibly complicated. Prokaryotic cells much less so. The last universal common ancestor cell would probably have been even more simple. RNA cells would certainly not have had a nucleus and everything would have been coded and carried out by the ribosomes, they could have been very simple. To get modern cells a shift between RNA enzymes and protein enzymes has to occur as well as gene transference to DNA. No-one is claiming that a considerable number of steps aren´t required.
I actually believe cells are quite complicated, as I have pointed out
throughout my time here, everything is coded, the structure, the
actions! Everything must be taken into account, the environment at
the start, the environment as time goes on since anything that goes
south in the environment could end the process completely! More
times than not when ...[text shortened]... at
is required to make it work. Sorry, I have not read your link yet, I
will this week.
Kelly
My argument is that the additional complexities were the result of selection for RNA molecules which could manage their own environment as the external environment became less conducive. It is not one single small ´tweak´, but a sequence of tweaks, each of which is simple and does not produce a large change in the nature of the proto-cell, but collectively the sequence of tweaks produce a huge qualitative shift from self-copying molecules to reproducing cells.
The problem of the environment going south is not a threat to the natural origin of life theories but a key component. The structures we see now are the result of a history of natural calamities, not something that happened in spite of them.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtIt sure will be fascinating to finally know what started the Cambrian Explosion 600 million years ago! There are a lot of theories about that but not much in the way of winners yet, except it was thought the Earth was pretty much covered in ice just before that time, if that was true, than a change in climate, maybe produced by some kind of comet that left a dirty layer on the ice and it melted because of that which maybe caused a switch in the environment enough to kickstart new life forms when more sunlight hit the oceans. Or something like that. Wouldn't it be incredible if we had a time machine that could go back say, a billion years and fast forwarda a million years at a flash and have satellites that could make billion year long animation of the changes in ice ages, colliding continents and such! Then zero in on the explosion era and watch it closely. Say when the machine goes to its last million year jump to find invertarates nicely in place, then go back to the beginning of that million year jump point and start a new jump once a year or so and once a week when we get a more detailed look at the changes made by whatever.
Modern eukaryotic cells are incredibly complicated. Prokaryotic cells much less so. The last universal common ancestor cell would probably have been even more simple. RNA cells would certainly not have had a nucleus and everything would have been coded and carried out by the ribosomes, they could have been very simple. To get modern cells a shift bet ...[text shortened]... are the result of a history of natural calamities, not something that happened in spite of them.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtOkay, do me a favor list what was required from beginning to end on
Modern eukaryotic cells are incredibly complicated. Prokaryotic cells much less so. The last universal common ancestor cell would probably have been even more simple. RNA cells would certainly not have had a nucleus and everything would have been coded and carried out by the ribosomes, they could have been very simple. To get modern cells a shift bet ...[text shortened]... are the result of a history of natural calamities, not something that happened in spite of them.
the simplist cell you think was involved in life formation. What were
the features of its structure, and the activities that the cell would also
have to do as well, such as reproduce, heal itself, eat and so on. From
there let us talk about all of these simple small items.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI think DeepThought will have no trouble doing that. But first...do us a favour and tell us what was involved in designer formation.
Okay, do me a favor list what was required from beginning to end on
the simplist cell you think was involved in life formation. What were
the features of its structure, and the activities that the cell would also
have to do as well, such as reproduce, heal itself, eat and so on. From
there let us talk about all of these simple small items.
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6Designer formation?
I think DeepThought will have no trouble doing that. But first...do us a favour and tell us what was involved in designer formation.
Ants build with intent, foxes with intent, owls with intent, people with
intent, Bees with intent and so on. You have some designer you'd
like to discuss?
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6If you want to talk about my beliefs on creation, God always was,
Creation of the designer, yes. Was the designer necessarily designed, or is it possible that the designer was not designed?
is, and will be; there was never a time God wasn't as He is. The
creationist view doesn't have an issue of an ever ending process of
something coming from nothing, that is limited to the Big Bang view
of the universe.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat if the designer weren't God? Remember, we're talking about Intelligent Design here, and not Christianity. If the designer were not God, then would the designer necessarily be designed, or is it possible that the designer wasn't designed?
If you want to talk about my beliefs on creation, God always was,
is, and will be; there was never a time God wasn't as He is. The
creationist view doesn't have an issue of an ever ending process of
something coming from nothing, that is limited to the Big Bang view
of the universe.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by PBE6No, you were very specific were you not asking me about my beliefs?
What if the designer weren't God? Remember, we're talking about Intelligent Design here, and not Christianity. If the designer were not God, then would the designer necessarily be designed, or is it possible that the designer wasn't designed?
In this discussion between evolutionary design with intent or without
it I'm limiting my views on everything except the process itself. If
want to talk about creation I'm all for it, though I'm quite sure others
will prefer we take that to the spiritual board.
If the discussion is just about any designer, than we cannot touch that
because we would have to know who did it.
Kelly