L
lemondiesel
Guest
hence the reason for a concept of a ‘god’ to judge our actions and words.
only when we truly get pass that, will there be no reason for a god to exist
- Status
only when we truly get pass that, will there be no reason for a god to exist
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Well, personally I think that’s a sad, desultory and limited way to view the world.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
You do know, I assume, that the bacterial flagellum argument has been soundly debunked? It is reducible.
J
Just_Lurking
Guest
Why is it that God / the Intelligent Designer couldn’t design the universe using reducible biological components entirely?
C
Cristiano
Guest
I think that there is a difference between a temporary violation of a law and the assertion that something comes out from “nothing”. Look at the case of neutrinos, when in a specific state they should not have mass but in order to oscillate from state to state they must have a mass. Physicist do not say that the mass comes from nothing, they will simply try develop a new and more accurate model.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just as the mousetrap can be reduced to its components. But when you consider specified complexity it doesn’t. Design can use and reuse components just as software uses subroutines when needed.
B
buffalo
Guest
I would be careful about conflating God and the Intelligent Designer.
If I am getting this right - He could. The basic elements as well as the basic building blocks of life.
However, the DNA code is irreducibly complex and comes from a mind.
What ID looks for is evidence for intelligent activity. Then it goes on to calculate the odds. Upon crossing a threshold confidence grows that intelligence is at work.
O
onenow1
Guest
And God gave permission to do this, with His creatrd material.
Peace,and God Bless
onenow1
opcorn:
Peace,and God Bless
onenow1
opcorn:
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
DNA is not irreducibly complex. The whole argument of irreducible complexity is arrant nonsense. Save a few cranks, no one in the scientific field takes it seriously. Chemically, there is nothing about DNA that would lead one to believe that there is any intelligence behind it nor anything chemically unusual about it.
I can tell you right now that DNA can be reduced into Nucleobases, Deoxyribose sugar and phosphate.
Now, let’s take a nucleoubase, Thymine for example:
Thymine is a pyrimidine, a heterocyclic aromatic organic compound similar to benzene and pyridine, containing two nitrogen atoms at positions 1 and 3 of the six-member ring.
We can reduce that to atoms. Nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen and carbon.
If you want to get technical, you can actually take that further into the subatomic realm of baryons made up of quarks and held together by bosons.
If you want to take that to the limits, it can be reduced to four fundamental force fields, the Strong Nuclear, Weak Nuclear, Electromagnetic and gravitational fields and their quanta.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I fail to see what relevance this has to biological science? Unless of course you’re assume that biology is related to design in some way, in which case you’d just be plain wrong.
B
buffalo
Guest
I said nothing about the DNA molecule. I said the DNA code came from a mind.
B
buffalo
Guest
Huh? The converging evidence is that intelligence drives life.
B
buffalo
Guest
I was going to let the “not chemically unusual” comment pass. But, you have to be living in a cave to see the complexity involved with DNA processes. Just protein folding for example. Millions and millions of possibilities, but instructed to fold in one particular way.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
No, it is not.
The vast majority of life is not intelligent. As a matter of fact, it is microbes that drive life and balance ecosystems.
If you take yourself for example, only 10% of you is what you think of as a human being. 90% of the cells in your body are bacteria.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Again, no. Protein folding is a product of selection, not intelligence.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Can you please explain how does this relates to the poster comment.
Bacteria are not automatically part of the human being.
90% of the cells in my body are bacteria? You can probably be right but I would like to see a reference to it. I can see that we have that kind of amount on our surfaces but that for sure it must include skin and not “in” my body.
C
Cristiano
Guest
Proof of either/or concept please?
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes it is
No it’s not
Yes it is. and round and round we go. Refute my links/citations if you can.
The “simplest” organism is complex.
Just what I said:
Simplest bacteria unravelled at the cellular level
…
The researchers took Mycoplasma pneumoniae, a small bacteria consisting of a single cell, as their model cell. In humans, this bacteria causes atypical pneumonia. It is one of the smallest prokaryotes that can multiply itself without using the cell mechanism of a host.
Uniquely, Van Noort and her colleagues examined the function of the cell at different levels. These levels had previously been studied separately, but they were now brought together for the first time. Studying biological systems in this way - as a whole - is the basis of systems biology. This discipline asks questions, for example, about the molecular anatomy of a cell in order to thoroughly understand the functioning of an organism as a whole.
The bacteria appeared to be assembled in a far more complex way than had been thought. The researchers studied the proteome, the concentration of certain proteins in the cell, and the metabolome, the concentration of substances which ensure that the proteins can do their jobs. At these two different levels, many molecules appeared to have several functions. For example, the metabolic enzymes catalysed several unrelated reactions. and the proteins in the proteome were often active in more than one protein complex. The bacteria appeared to physically connect protein complexes that were responsible for the cell mechanism of two successive steps in a biological process.
What is remarkable is that the regulation of the transcriptome - the collection of RNA that deals with copying genetic information stored in the DNA - appeared to be far more similar to that of eukaryotes than had previously been thought. A large proportion of the transcripts produced from the bacteria’s DNA were, just as in eukaryotes, not converted into proteins. The prokaryotes include simple life forms such as bacteria, whereas eukaryotes include higher organisms such as plants and mammals. That is why the researchers selected this bacterium: complex enough to survive on its own but still small enough and simple enough to serve as a suitable model of a single cell.
**Another surprising result of the research is that, despite its very small genome, the bacterium is extremely flexible: it adapts its metabolism to major changes in its environment. It can therefore rapidly adapt to the available food sources and stress factors, just like the more complex eukaryotes. **
http://www.physorg.com/news181239259.html
more…
Systems biology, more complex than thought, adapatable - let this all sink in.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
The basics of protein folding are detailed here. You won’t find any mention of divine intervention, the folding can be explained by Chemistry.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_folding
- Status