A simple case for intelligent design

[tas8831]

Before I reply, I would like to remind the reader of my prediction in the post Leroy responded to:

PREDICTION - if Leroy replies, he will quote one sentence and go off on a tangent, ignoring the citations and debunking.​

My prediction was 100% accurate.

LEROY Said

1 you need many (say a few hundred) amino acids (+ some other stuff)

@tas8831 replied

How do you know? Sources please

Proteins are made out of amino acids, even the smallest protein has 50+ amino acids, you can't have less otherwise you won't have stabable molecules, and they won't have the hability to fold properly.

1. This is false. The peptide hormones oxytocin and anti-diuretic hormone are made up of 9 amino acids.
2. You have not explained how you know, or provided your source.

Not to mention that a self replicating molecule would likely be a complex protein with houndrets of amino acids +other stuff like

How do you know? Source please.

And when you provide your rationale, do keep in mind that you will almost certainly be describing 'life' as we know it today, whereas, it is a near certainty the the 'first life' was not like what is alive today, so your efforts (if even made at all) will have been moot.

If you disagree and want to afirm that the first self replicating molecule was simple (with few amino acids) please accept your burden and provide your testable evidence,

Why do I have to provide testable evidence when all you seem capable of is regurgitating some pap you've seen on a Bill Dembski acolyte's blog?
Where is YOUR testable evidence re: the structure of the first living organisms?

I won't love forward to the next point until you ether
1 grant this premise.
Or
2 until you falsify it.

Just to be clear, you are suppose ether accept or falsify the claim that the first replicating molecule probably (more likely than not) had many amino acids (say more than 100) +other stuff like sugars, lipids etc.

Remember - you IGNORED most of the post you replied to - why should I or anyone else jump through your hoops when you lack the wherewithal to even respond to most of what others write? Is that how you avoid being exposed?

Here is what you ignored (couldn't handle?), the one thing you addressed is in red:

We've gone from you claiming that you need to know whether or not a sequence of DNA is a gene or not before applying the filter, to tossing out pure speculation and dreamed up scenarios regarding things you cannot possibly have ANY knowledge of AT ALL?????

Can you people be consistent in your arguments for ONCE?

For the rest of this reply, I will basically be reiterating what Tag already wrote, but it is for reiteration/reinforcement purposes, because these claims are whack.

How do you know? Sources please.

Great insight...

How was this determined and by whom?
That life we know of TODAY has specific needs does not dictate that the first living things had the exact same needs, so what is the evidence that this was always the case for the first living things?

How do you know?
You seem to be hinting at the 'all at once' thing - nobody has posited that a 'complete' living thing was the first living thing.

YES.

Except for:

Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces

Abstract
From synthetic drugs to biodegradable plastics to the origin of life, the chiral selection of molecules presents both daunting challenges and significant opportunities in materials science. Among the most promising, yet little explored, avenues for chiral molecular discrimination is adsorption on chiral crystalline surfaces — periodic environments that can select, concentrate and possibly even organize molecules into polymers and other macromolecular structures. Here we review experimental and theoretical approaches to chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces — research that is poised to open this new frontier in understanding and exploiting surface-molecule interactions.​

Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities, and the Origins of Life

Abstract
Crystalline surfaces of common rock-forming minerals are likely to have played several important roles in life’s geochemical origins. Transition metal sulfides and oxides promote a variety of organic reactions, including nitrogen reduction, hydroformylation, amination, and Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis. Fine-grained clay minerals and hydroxides facilitate lipid self-organization and condensation polymerization reactions, notably of RNA monomers. Surfaces of common rock-forming oxides, silicates, and carbonates select and concentrate specific amino acids, sugars, and other molecular species, while potentially enhancing their thermal stabilities. Chiral surfaces of these minerals also have been shown to separate left- and right-handed molecules. Thus, mineral surfaces may have contributed centrally to the linked prebiotic problems of containment and organization by promoting the transition from a dilute prebiotic “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.​

If the first living things 'evolved' at mineral surfaces such as those mentioned, then it stands to reason that a particular chirality would be favored.

WRONG
You left out context. If the medium in/on which these reactions are occurring favor the presence of one chirality over another, then why wouldn't those reactions employ one chirality over another?

See above.

This argument seems to be akin to the arguments of yore in which creationists insisted and just knew that amino acids and nucleobases and such could ONLY arise via biotic synthesis.

Then they were found in meteorites.
And produced abiotically.
And produced in varied and many abiotic conditions.

At some point in the near future, creationists will have retreated to an even more 'reductionist' type of argument. Maybe arguing that carbon atoms cannot arise on earth naturally or something.


It would have helped if you and your sources updated your archives now and then. Maybe then you wouldn't keep making out-of-date proclamations with such confidence.

You know, it took me about 30 seconds to find those articles above. You should keep this in mind the next time you set out to make a 'scientific' argument based on something you've read in a creationist book.
I must have missed wherein you established that life HAD BEEN created.
So...
Where were they tested?
I have been seeing similar assertions from creationists for decades. Never once have I seen a creationist since 2010 write:

"Hold on guys - this Hazen guy is finding that mineral clay surfaces adsorb organic molecules with chiral preferences... so maybe our whole 'CHIRALITY!!!' argument isn't as sound as we thought... Maybe tone it down?"

No no - all I see are the same proud assertions about:

"How does evolution explain THIS chirality stuff, huh? HUH??? God is amazing!!!"



If you receive a royal flush in a poker hand, is that SC? What if you remove most of the cards from the deck that are not of a particular suit?

Waiting for the tests on that - where are they?


This is from 2012 - does it count as a test?

Error - Cookies Turned Off
Unusual nonterrestrialL-proteinogenic amino acid excesses in the TagishLake meteorite

Abstract–The distribution and isotopic and enantiomeric compositions of amino acids found in three distinct fragments of the Tagish Lake C2-type carbonaceous chondrite were investigated via liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection and time-of-flight mass spectrometry and gas chromatography isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Large l-enantiomeric excesses (lee43–59%) of the a-hydrogen aspartic and glutamic amino acids were measured in Tagish Lake, whereas alanine, anothera-hydrogen protein amino acid, wasfound to be nearly racemic (dl) using both techniques. Carbon isotope measurements of d- and l-aspartic acid and d- and l-alanine in Tagish Lake fall well outside of the terrestrial range and indicate that the measured aspartic acid enantioenrichment is indigenous to the meteorite. Alternate explanations for the l-excesses of aspartic acid such as interference from other compounds present in the sample, analytical biases, or terrestrial amino acid contamination were investigated and rejected. These results can be explained by differences in the solid–solution phase behavior of aspartic acid, which can form conglomerate enantiopure solids during crystallization, and alanine, which can only form racemic crystals. Amplification of a small initial l-enantiomer excess during aqueous alteration on the meteorite parent body could have led to the large l-enrichments observed for aspartic acid and other conglomerate amino acids in Tagish Lake. The detection of nonterrestrial l-proteinogenic amino acid excesses in the Tagish Lake meteorite provides support for the hypothesis that significant enantiomeric enrichments for some amino acids could form by abiotic processes prior to the emergence of life.​

I look forward to your presentation of creationist/IDcreationist scientific papers discovering or testing hypotheses of Creation or 'Intelligent Non-human Design", or "Deity Design".

But I suspect there will never be such things published, even in creationist journals.​

Did you omit all that because you realized you had nothing to counter it with, and are hoping I will forget about all the stuff that called your claims into question and just fall into your rabbit hole of tangential minutiae? Most likely...

 

[tas8831]

Yes, we know, we can know, test and verify etc. for example that a chain of just LH aminoacids is less likely than a chain of both LH and RH aminoacids, this is something that we can know, we can test, we can verify, and is subject to falsification.

It is so cute how you ignore things that have been presented to you in order to continue with your adoration of Dembski's irrelevant assertions.


Chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces

Abstract
From synthetic drugs to biodegradable plastics to the origin of life, the chiral selection of molecules presents both daunting challenges and significant opportunities in materials science. Among the most promising, yet little explored, avenues for chiral molecular discrimination is adsorption on chiral crystalline surfaces — periodic environments that can select, concentrate and possibly even organize molecules into polymers and other macromolecular structures. Here we review experimental and theoretical approaches to chiral selection on inorganic crystalline surfaces — research that is poised to open this new frontier in understanding and exploiting surface-molecule interactions.​

Mineral Surfaces, Geochemical Complexities, and the Origins of Life

Abstract
Crystalline surfaces of common rock-forming minerals are likely to have played several important roles in life’s geochemical origins. Transition metal sulfides and oxides promote a variety of organic reactions, including nitrogen reduction, hydroformylation, amination, and Fischer-Tropsch-type synthesis. Fine-grained clay minerals and hydroxides facilitate lipid self-organization and condensation polymerization reactions, notably of RNA monomers. Surfaces of common rock-forming oxides, silicates, and carbonates select and concentrate specific amino acids, sugars, and other molecular species, while potentially enhancing their thermal stabilities. Chiral surfaces of these minerals also have been shown to separate left- and right-handed molecules. Thus, mineral surfaces may have contributed centrally to the linked prebiotic problems of containment and organization by promoting the transition from a dilute prebiotic “soup” to highly ordered local domains of key biomolecules.​

Unusual nonterrestrial L-proteinogenic amino acid excesses in the Tagish Lake meteorite

Abstract–The distribution and isotopic and enantiomeric compositions of amino acids found in three distinct fragments of the Tagish Lake C2-type carbonaceous chondrite were investigated via liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection and time-of-flight mass spectrometry and gas chromatography isotope ratio mass spectrometry. Large l-enantiomeric excesses (lee43–59%) of the a-hydrogen aspartic and glutamic amino acids were measured in Tagish Lake, whereas alanine, anothera-hydrogen protein amino acid, wasfound to be nearly racemic (dl) using both techniques. Carbon isotope measurements of d- and l-aspartic acid and d- and l-alanine in Tagish Lake fall well outside of the terrestrial range and indicate that the measured aspartic acid enantioenrichment is indigenous to the meteorite. Alternate explanations for the l-excesses of aspartic acid such as interference from other compounds present in the sample, analytical biases, or terrestrial amino acid contamination were investigated and rejected. These results can be explained by differences in the solid–solution phase behavior of aspartic acid, which can form conglomerate enantiopure solids during crystallization, and alanine, which can only form racemic crystals. Amplification of a small initial l-enantiomer excess during aqueous alteration on the meteorite parent body could have led to the large l-enrichments observed for aspartic acid and other conglomerate amino acids in Tagish Lake. The detection of nonterrestrial l-proteinogenic amino acid excesses in the Tagish Lake meteorite provides support for the hypothesis that significant enantiomeric enrichments for some amino acids could form by abiotic processes prior to the emergence of life.​

 

[leroy]

And we already know self-replicating RNA strande don't have to be that complicated.

That would completely falsify my claim, have any source? Care to expand a little bit more,?

4 bases and 20 amino acids, a 120 base RNA strand corresponds in information to about 55 amino acids in a protein.

120 bases work for me, 120 bases is complex enough to make a case for SC

Are there good reasons to think that it was smaller than 120 basis

 

[Polymath257]

That would completely falsify my claim, have any source? Care to expand a little bit more,?


120 bases work for me, 120 bases is complex enough to make a case for SC

Are there good reasons to think that it was smaller than 120 basis

How about a 32-amino acid self replicating protein?

A self-replicating peptide

That's well below your 50 amino acid limit.

How about an 86 base pair sequence of RNA?

Structural analysis of self-replicating RNA synthesized by Qβ replicase - ScienceDirect

And there is no reason to expect either of these to be minimal.

Also, you need to consider that there will be shorter strands in the environment in your calculation. This drastically enhances the probability of formation (although there can be some rate limitations due to the number of shorter strands).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

120 bases work for me, 120 bases is complex enough to make a case for SC

Why?

How did you determine that "120 is enough"? How about 110? 100? 15?
What's the threshold and how was it determined?

 

[leroy]

Before I reply, I would like to remind the reader of my prediction in the post Leroy responded to:

PREDICTION - if Leroy replies, he will quote one sentence and go off on a tangent, ignoring the citations and debunking.​

​

I am not ignoring the post, I simply decided to stick to point 1 and only adress the following points until this point is setteled

Is that so bad?

Poit 1 being that a self replicating protein/RNA strand or whatever your view is would require many (say more than 100) molecules

Your chirality stuff is not relevant to this specific point, that is why I haven't adress them

1. This is false. The peptide hormones oxytocin and anti-diuretic hormone are made up of 9 amino acids.

You are just playing semantics, the point is that any protein capable of storing information and catalizing the reactions needed for a complex function like self replication would be likely complex.... How do I know this? Because this is what we can actually observe.

You can't solve this by using creative semantics and call a 9aminiacid peptide a protein

Are you affirming that the first self replicating molecule was a 9 amino Ipeptide? Yes? no? Let me guess you are not affirming nor denying anything, you would rather keap your position vague and ambiguous.

And when you provide your rationale, do keep in mind that you will almost certainly be describing 'life' as we know it today, whereas, it is a near certainty the the 'first life' was not like what is alive today, so your efforts (if even made at all) will have been moot.

Then provide an argument, how was this first life suppose to look like? There are many hypothesis, why don't you select your favorite one? If you don't what people to make strawman arguments, then make clear and unabigous arguments.

O wait, yes I forgot, you don't what to adopt and defend a specific view, you would rather to keap your position vague and ambiguous

Why can't you do what @Polymath257 did? Which is actually making testable arguments and clear claims?

 

[leroy]

How about a 32-amino acid self replicating protein?

A self-replicating peptide

That's well below your 50 amino acid limit.

How about an 86 base pair sequence of RNA?

Structural analysis of self-replicating RNA synthesized by Qβ replicase - ScienceDirect

And there is no reason to expect either of these to be minimal.

Also, you need to consider that there will be shorter strands in the environment in your calculation. This drastically enhances the probability of formation (although there can be some rate limitations due to the number of shorter strands).

Well a 86 strand is to large to have been arisen by chance isent it?.... Even assuming that all you need are nucleotides to produce a viable self replicating thing capable of undergoing sucessfull darwinian evolution (which based on the article, is far from being true)

What are the odds of having 86 nucleotides organized in the correct order such that any small modification would result in a failed self replicating "thing"

Even a single 86 long strand with homochirality seems very unlikely to have arisen by chance.

Agree?

Note that at this point I am not claiming that it can't happened, I am simply claiming that it can't happen by chance

Do we agree on this specific point?

 

[leroy]

Why would we focus on that process alone?
It's only a small part of it.

We know it was done by humans, because the process of building entails quite a bit more then just stacking the stones. The sheer fact that the stones are carved out, is already evidence enough to conclude that it's not a natural structure.



View attachment 37039

Manufactured stone tools dated to a time when Homo Sapiens hadn't evolved yet. More then 1.5 million years old.



Yep. See above.



Because there were no humans round at that time.
Homo Sapiens is only 200.000 to 300.000 years old.
We have found such tools as old as 2 million years.

My point is that how do you know that these tools are a product of non-human design? Why can't these toold be the product of wind and erosion? Or perhaps the product of an unknown natural law?

The fact that you are proclaiming non-human design in this tools indicate that you most have an objective method that would allow us to infer design, so what method is that? Why don't you share your method with us, perhaps we can apply that method to life and see if life was designed

 

[leroy]

For example, where are the peer reviewed studies showing your method for detecting SC works? ks.

As I said before, the lack of peer reviewed articles does not show that the method doesn't work or even that it is bad, the lack of peer review simply indicates that more information, and furder development is needed.

You can't provide peer reviewed articles proving that organisms evolve mainly by the darwinian mechanism of random variation and NS ether, so are we to conclude that evolution is wrong?

 

[Polymath257]

Well a 86 strand is to large to have been arisen by chance isent it?.... Even assuming that all you need are nucleotides to produce a viable self replicating thing capable of undergoing sucessfull darwinian evolution (which based on the article, is far from being true)

What are the odds of having 86 nucleotides organized in the correct order such that any small modification would result in a failed self replicating "thing"

Even a single 86 long strand with homochirality seems very unlikely to have arisen by chance.

Agree?

Note that at this point I am not claiming that it can't happened, I am simply claiming that it can't happen by chance

Do we agree on this specific point?

Again, you had claimed a 50 amino acid minimum on proteins and I showed a 32 amino acid example. So your claim (prediction) was falsified.

I don't know whether an 86 base sequence of RNA is too long to form spontaneously. and who said that any small change would make it unable to replicate? In fact, I would expect some changes to still allow such.

And, once again, this is an example, but it is probably not a minimal example. And, in any case, is far smaller than what you were thinking would be possible.

I notice your use of the words 'by chance'. I would prefer the word 'spontaneously' since it actually conveys the issue. It also shows that the environment, including the types of smaller strands that exist, is important.

So, how likely it is that such a strand arises spontaneously? I have no idea. I don't even know how to start doing a calculation like that in the absence of a mechanism.

 

[Polymath257]

As I said before, the lack of peer reviewed articles does not show that the method doesn't work or even that it is bad, the lack of peer review simply indicates that more information, and furder development is needed.

OK, I will withhold judgement until that work is done.

You can't provide peer reviewed articles proving that organisms evolve mainly by the darwinian mechanism of random variation and NS ether, so are we to conclude that evolution is wrong?

On the contrary, given the comparison between computer models and actual observations, there are plenty of such articles: anything that shows the evolution of any sequence of animals is an example (horses, humans, elephants, etc)

 

[leroy]

OK, I will withhold judgement until that work is done.



On the contrary, given the comparison between computer models and actual observations, there are plenty of such articles: anything that shows the evolution of any sequence of animals is an example (horses, humans, elephants, etc)

None of the articles show that humans elephants horses etc evolved from fundamentally different animals by the mechanisms of random variation and natural selection

 

[leroy]

Again, you had claimed a 50 amino acid minimum on proteins and I showed a 32 amino acid example. So your claim (prediction) was falsified.

I don't know whether an 86 base sequence of RNA is too long to form spontaneously. and who said that any small change would make it unable to replicate? In fact, I would expect some changes to still allow such.

And, once again, this is an example, but it is probably not a minimal example. And, in any case, is far smaller than what you were thinking would be possible.

I notice your use of the words 'by chance'. I would prefer the word 'spontaneously' since it actually conveys the issue. It also shows that the environment, including the types of smaller strands that exist, is important.

So, how likely it is that such a strand arises spontaneously? I have no idea. I don't even know how to start doing a calculation like that in the absence of a mechanism.

With chance I simply mean without a mechanism with a bias favoring the required pattern

For example in the absence of a mechanism with a bias, the probability of having an homochiral strand by chance with 86 bases would by 1 in 2^86.... A number so small that we can say with certainty that such an event has never occurred by chance

The point that i am trying to show us that chance hypothesis fail, we do need a mechanism (ether natural or supernatural) at this point do you agree?

 

[Polymath257]

With chance I simply mean without a mechanism with a bias favoring the required pattern

For example in the absence of a mechanism with a bias, the probability of having an homochiral strand by chance with 86 bases would by 1 in 2^86.... A number so small that we can say with certainty that such an event has never occurred by chance

I disagree, since such happens all the time in statistical mechanics.

The point that i am trying to show us that chance hypothesis fail, we do need a mechanism (ether natural or supernatural) at this point do you agree?

Yes, and that is *precisely* what abiogenesis research is trying to find: the natural mechanism for such a development.

And, they are finding such *in the natural chemical and physical properties of the substances involved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My point is that how do you know that these tools are a product of non-human design?

Because of the evidence of carving. It's a sign of manufacturing.
We know and understand what carving is.

Why can't these toold be the product of wind and erosion? Or perhaps the product of an unknown natural law?

Because we understand the process of carving and also know a thing or two about erosion, and as such, can tell the difference between both.

The fact that you are proclaiming non-human design in this tools indicate that you most have an objective method that would allow us to infer design, so what method is that?

Looking for signs of manufacturing.
Like carving, in this case.

In another case it might be use of plastics, or bolts, or nails, or rope knots, or screws, ... or even a trademark stamp.

Why don't you share your method with us, perhaps we can apply that method to life and see if life was designed

I just shared it.
And life doesn't show signs of manufacturing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

None of the articles show that humans elephants horses etc evolved from fundamentally different animals

Why would any article mention that, when no animal actually evolves from "fundamentally different" animals?

by the mechanisms of random variation and natural selection

Articles deal with the mechanisms we know about. You won't find any articles on things we don't know about.
That should be kind of obvious.

The mechanisms we know about, are also sufficient enough in the big picture to explain the evidence. There doesn't seem a need for any additional mechanisms that we currently have no evidence of.

If you have a mechanism in mind that in your opinion plays a role and should be included, you are VERY free to detail your research, list your evidence and submit your paper for publication.

 

[leroy]

Because of the evidence of carving. It's a sign of manufacturing.
We know and understand what carving is.



Because we understand the process of carving and also know a thing or two about erosion, and as such, can tell the difference between both.



Looking for signs of manufacturing.
Like carving, in this case.

In another case it might be use of plastics, or bolts, or nails, or rope knots, or screws, ... or even a trademark stamp.




I just shared it.
And life doesn't show signs of manufacturing.

Ok so define "carving" can someone indentify "carving" ? you have to provide a definition that doesn´t implies design, (otherwise you would be doing circular reasoning)

Because we understand the process of carving and also know a thing or two about erosion, and as such, can tell the difference between both.

And how can you tell when something is the resoult of carving or the resoult of wind and erosion? what objective method woudl you propose? I woudl suggest you to use Demskies filter, but feel free to provide an other method if you have one in mind

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ok so define "carving" can someone indentify "carving" ? you have to provide a definition that doesn´t implies design, (otherwise you would be doing circular reasoning)

You don't seem to understand.
Carving is a design technique. So when you identify signs of carving on an object, then that is evidence for design, because carving is a design technique. As opposed to for example erosion, which is a natural process.

Carving thus very much implies design. It is design / manufacturing / artificial manipulation of the rock.
So when you find a rock that's been carved / shows signs of carving, what does that tell you?
When you find a rock thats been eroded / shows signs of erosion, what does that tell you?

This is how I identify design: I look for signs of manufacturing / artificial manipulation.
The "function" and "purpose" of the object really aren't the most important thing. In many cases, they will even be irrelevant.

And how can you tell when something is the resoult of carving or the resoult of wind and erosion?

The same way we can tell someone was burned in the past when seeing the scars years later.

Because we understand the processes of erosion, carving and burning and thus know how it affects various objects. This understanding allows us to identify those objects that had that happen to them in the past.

what objective method woudl you propose?

Science.

I woudl suggest you to use Demskies filter, but feel free to provide an other method if you have one in mind

I have no need for a fallacious filter that doesn't work.
The method I use seems quite reliable.

 

[tas8831]

I am not ignoring the post, I simply decided to stick to point 1 and only adress the following points until this point is setteled

Is that so bad?

A point not made in any replies to me.

So you are ignoring my entire series of posts in favor of the one thing that, via your ignorance, you think you might be able to score a point.

Go for it.

I'm enjoying your usual flailing and failing.

 

[tas8831]

Why can't you do what @Polymath257 did? Which is actually making testable arguments and clear claims?

You seem to find it very difficult to stick to a single topic. You meander from assertion to assertion. Then project your shortcomings onto others.

Typical creationist.