Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on January 8, 2012 at 11:59pm

I've read it.  I was well aware of the biology involved before making my statements.  You just aren't listening to what is being said to you which is why you can't address what is being said.

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 9, 2012 at 12:04am

Hey Angelo,

 

... information theory argument for design

 

You've piqued my interest. I'm going to go read up on this a bit. Thanks,

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on January 7, 2012 at 9:19pm

Hey Angelo,

 

All disproven. Please address those proofs in order to advance this discussion.

 

- kk

Permalink Reply by James on January 7, 2012 at 11:26pm

we are not talking about information in a general sense, but about codified information, ans a written language, a computer code, and the codified information contained in   DNA...

That is simply false. A unsupported claim. 

Angelo, Angelo, Angelo... I'm going to assume that you haven't looked at any of the links we have provided to you (what I loosely referenced was posted much earlier), so I'll now post a more thorough step-by-step.

•Start with the conditions we expected to find on early Earth. Pre-biotic Earth had plenty of organic molecules.
•The pre-biotic environment contained simple fatty acids.
•Under the right pH they form stable vesicles.
•These are permeable to small organic molecules.
•When a vesticle free fatty acids, it can incorporate them.
•'Eating' and growth are driven by thermodynamics.
•As a vesicle grows, it adopts a tubular branched shape.
•These can be divided by mechanical forces (waves, rocks, etc).
•Monomers will base pair with a single standard template and self litigate.
•They can also polymerize in solution and form new template or extend old ones.
•No special sequence required, it's just chemistry.
•Our fatty acid vesicles are permeable to nucleotides and monomers but not polymers.
•Once polymerization occurs within the vesicle, the polymer is trapped.
•Polymer containing vesicles will encounter convection currents, like those from hydrothermal vents.
•The high temperatures separate the polymer strands and increase membrane permiabilityto monomers.
•Once the temperature cools, polymerization occurs, trapping them inside. Repeat.
•The polymer, due to surrounding ions will increase the osmotic pressure within the vesicle which stretches the membrane.
•A vesicle with more polymer will 'steal' lipidsfrom a vesicle with less polmer, by way of thermodynamics.
•In effect, they eat one another and competition is born.
•Vesicles that contain a polymer that can replicate faster will grow and divide faster.
•Early genomes were completely random, and therefor had no information.
•It is the ability to replicate irrespective of sequence that drove growth and division of fatty acid vesicles.
•A mutation that increases the rate of polymer replication will be selected for.
•This leads to the evolution of more and more successful individual combinations.
•Mutation + Natural Selection = Increased Information.

Remember, we're talking early days, so it's not to the stature of DNA yet, but it's a way that information could have arrived on the scene naturally. You will probably say that it's a different kind of information that you're talking about. But DNA tells how to build the being that it resides in. Same as this early information told how to build better and better versions of where it resides. Simple things need are fine with simple information. Complex things typically require more complex information. Since we know the complex life of Earth evolved from much simpler forms, why is it such a stretch to accept that more complex things like RNA or DNA could have also come from simpler beginnings. I don't think anyone here is saying that DNA just up and popped  into existence (well, other than possibly you).

But this 'discussion' is growing tiresome. Since it seems that you keep asking for answers to questions that have been answered many times over, and have stated yourself that you are in no way open to explanations other than the claims you cling to, then I feel that my participation in this thread may be nearing it's end. I'd like to keep from this thread interrupting my sleep cycle more than it already has, so unless I see something that seriously needs addressing, I will only be reading this thread. There are a number of great members here, so I'm sure they'll have it covered. :)  But rest assured, I will continue reading. I did say that I was open to change, so I'll stay tuned to see if you post anything proven or convincing. Or maybe you'll share your personal experience(s) that seem to prove to you that your god is a fact. I had no such experiences in my years of belief, nor in the years since I stopped believing, so I'm curious to hear what it is that I missed out on. So I'll read eagerly to see if I can actually learn anything from these pages and pages. Learning is fun, so let the fun begin!

Also, while Angelo isn't open to anything other than what he already believes, it is easy to feel like ones time was wasted by posting in and investing the time in this thread. However, I feel like not all is lost. Many more people read these threads than actively participate in them. I think it's clear to most here that any readers that came here 'on the fence' have likely found their way to Atheism thanks to Angelo's efforts. So thank you for that sir! :)

Cheers!

Permalink Reply by Artor on January 8, 2012 at 2:38am

I don't think the thread is a total loss. Angelo's consistent density has allowed many of us to examine and restate our own understanding of evolution in our attempts to explain it to him. Angelo is incapable of learning anything new, but I've read through many of the postings and several of the links to some pretty fascinating information I wouldn't have found if not for this thread.

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on January 8, 2012 at 4:01am

Very nice summary James.

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 8, 2012 at 1:24pm

So how about you ? are you capable to change position, if evidence leads to a other direction, than you believe in now ?

Permalink Reply by Rob Klaers on January 8, 2012 at 4:17pm

Angelo, 

I'm sure most here would reassess our positions should valid testable evidence come to light. At this point in time, despite your claims, there isn't any true evidence which would leas us as atheists/agnostics to reassess our stance. 

Permalink Reply by James on January 8, 2012 at 5:18pm

So how about you ? are you capable to change position, if evidence leads to a other direction, than you believe in now ?

Okay, one more point...

Um, I've stated several times that I am quite open to a change in position. All I ask for is the proof that verifies your claims to be true. To date, we haven't even had somewhere come here with even a decently compelling case that stands to logic.

As I've said before, your questions have been answered. You obviously aren't pleased that we are not accepting your claims. And in cases you've insinuated that I was insincere in my open-mindedness and thus rejecting you simply because we disagree. That is untrue, and you have received satisfactory answers. You stated that you are not open to the possibility of being wrong. By definition, this means that you are closed-minded. If you are not open to the possibility of being wrong, than that means that you have already rejected any answer we could ever give you before you've ever heard them. You said that yourself that you're not open to being wrong. Since this makes you non-receptive to contrary views by nature, have you considered the possibility that the reason you aren't happy with/compelled by are answers could be you. At the end of the day, if one isn't open to being wrong, even the most conclusive and accurate explanation will fall on deaf ears if contrary to their pre-held bias. So ask yourself again if you're open to being wrong. If you come to the same conclusion, then please realize that your state of mind means that you'll automatically reject anything contrary just because it's contrary and irregardless of it's validity.

Cheers!

Permalink Reply by Angelo on January 8, 2012 at 1:23pm

Pre-biotic Earth had plenty of organic molecules.

http://www.debate.org/debates/Abiogenesis-Is-Impossible/1/

Experiments to produce organic molecules often only given small yields of organic molecules. The Miller-Urey experiment only gave a yeild of 2%. That coupled with the destructive nature of oxygen, how could the pre-biotic earth have been filled with organic molecules? Also, what specific organic molecules? Amino acids are not the only building blocks for life. RNA and DNA strands alone require nucleotides, phospates, sugars. There are other problems.......

Since we know the complex life of Earth evolved from much simpler forms

We don't know that. That is a unsupported claim.

Permalink Reply by erik112358 on January 8, 2012 at 4:25pm

You do realize that pre-biotic earth would not have oxygen (O2), correct?  It would have been mostly hydrogen-rich gasses.  O2 was produced by plants, which would have obviously been after pre-biotic earth.

Permalink Reply by Albert Bakker on January 9, 2012 at 2:02am

Well plants in a way they used to be classified as such, actually prokaryotic cyaonobacteria but they key ingredient is photosynthesis. Chloroplasts in plants likely evolved from them, through symbiosis with eukaryotic cells.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 42
• 43
• 44
• 45
• 46
• …
• 101
• Next ›
• Page