Abiogenesis and evolution: James Tour

@kellyjay said
I've asked you to just explain how a mindless process with all the time you think you want would build anything functionally complex so that it has error checking for self-repair! There is no creativity within your "bingo" ed natural selection any so-called good reaction would be meaningless and just as easily wiped out as a new bad one appeared. As soon as you have all of ...[text shortened]... believers in "deep time did it" think could be done mindlessly under a rock or in a pond somewhere.

What on earth are you waffling on about.

Try reading a few books about natural selection and it’s impact on species development.

@kellyjay said
I'll grant you all the time you want, it isn't how much time that is the issue, but precise timing, and on-time material is available in the proper quantities. How about explaining how a mindless process would and could build something functionally complex so there is error checking? You know things like blood clotting, an immune system, and so on.

There is no error checking in nature. It's a human metaphor, not literally happening.

@moonbus said
There is no error checking in nature. It's a human metaphor, not literally happening.

Really, so when something like blood clotting occurs and there are on-off mechanisms in the reactions you don't think feedback loops within the lifeform are being deployed? You don't think the body actually fights off things in it that are harmful, there is nothing that checks for those types of things in our systems?

@kellyjay said
Really, so when something like blood clotting occurs and there are on-off mechanisms in the reactions you don't think feedback loops within the lifeform are being deployed? You don't think the body actually fights off things in it that are harmful, there is nothing that checks for those types of things in our systems?

"Feedback loops being deployed", "fighting off things", "checks for those types of things", "on-off mechanisms", are all metaphors, figures of speech, not what actually happens. What actually happens is chemical reactions. Some of them lead to the survival of the organism, others don't.

Nature knows no types of things. Sorting things into types of things is human, totally artificial and arbitrary. We can sort trees for example into species and genus (botanically) to distinguish them from grasses and bushes, or export goods (Brazil) or not-export goods (Saudi Arabia), or suitable building materials (house construction), or edible/inedible, etc. etc. Trees themselves are not any type at all. The same applies to cells and molecules; putting them into classes or types is arbitrary and relevant only to human utility.

There are more bacteria inside your body than there are KellyJay cells inside your body. We are swimming in a sea of bacteria, they are all around us, on our skin, in our skin, inside our bodies. As far as bacteria are concerned, we don't even exist; we're a figment of our own imaginations. The only real mystery here is not life -- that's just chemicals -- but imagination, consciousness, the ability to think up metaphors and apply them to chemicals as if chemicals had reasons and feedback loops and attacked things and defended things. Now there's a real mystery for you.

@kellyjay said
Really, so when something like blood clotting occurs and there are on-off mechanisms in the reactions you don't think feedback loops within the lifeform are being deployed? You don't think the body actually fights off things in it that are harmful, there is nothing that checks for those types of things in our systems?

People born with inherent diseases or disorders such compromised immune systems are (can be) “naturally selected” out of reproducing and passing on their genes. When this happens the species gets stronger.

Gross physical ugliness can also be naturally selected out of the gene pool as ugly people find it harder to find a mate.

So the species changes over generations. Do you understand this?

@divegeester said
People born with inherent diseases or disorders such compromised immune systems are (can be) “naturally selected” out of reproducing and passing on their genes. When this happens the species gets stronger.

Gross physical ugliness can also be naturally selected out of the gene pool as ugly people find it harder to find a mate.

So the species changes over generations. Do you understand this?

"Ugliness" is a value judgment, not a fact in nature; nature knows no ugliness. Gross physical deformity, however, is a fact in nature, and tends to be de-selected.

A human with a club foot may yet become a great romantic poet (Lord Byron, for example). A tiger with a club foot is dying of starvation.

@kellyjay said
Take it to the Spiritual forum, can you talk about the data, the mechanisms that a mindless process used to come up with new body plans, and new systems in life? You just want to bring up what you think lets you off the hook, play by your rules, and explain the science that allows a mindless process to create something new.

We are discussing evolution, and your lack of knowledge and understanding of it; that is the 'mindless process' which you seem quite unable to grasp. Nature does not 'come up with' new body plans, it doesn't matter to nature whether something looks like a hippopotamus or a weasel, or a human being, none has any more or less value than any other.

@kellyjay said
Really, so when something like blood clotting occurs and there are on-off mechanisms in the reactions you don't think feedback loops within the lifeform are being deployed? You don't think the body actually fights off things in it that are harmful, there is nothing that checks for those types of things in our systems?

Blood clots; this is a fact, it really happens, it is a chemical reaction, which is triggered when blood makes contact with air. (There are also other causes of blood clotting.) People in whom this chemical reaction does not occur, or occurs only very weakly, tend to bleed to death before they are old enough to reproduce. This explains why the condition is very rare. This is how natural selection works. Blood does not plan to clot. There are no instructions for blood to follow. Blood does not do any error checking.

@moonbus said
"Feedback loops being deployed", "fighting off things", "checks for those types of things", "on-off mechanisms", are all metaphors, figures of speech, not what actually happens. What actually happens is chemical reactions. Some of them lead to the survival of the organism, others don't.

Nature knows no types of things. Sorting things into [i]types of things[/ ...[text shortened]... sons and feedback loops and attacked things and defended things. Now there's a real mystery for you.

You are confused I didn’t say nature knows squat, I said that within life there are mechanisms that preform checks stopping errors from spreading, that is what is occurring.

You act as if nature has a mind itself, no, that is not what I am suggesting! Life knowing anything in its day today, minute to minute operation is not required, recognizing what some of its functions do is on us, seeing built into a living system mechanisms that perform specific tasks within tight parameters is not something done by mindless operations.

We know a mind can do it all, because we can with ours.

@kellyjay said
I'll grant you all the time you want, it isn't how much time that is the issue, but precise timing, and on-time material is available in the proper quantities. How about explaining how a mindless process would and could build something functionally complex so there is error checking? You know things like blood clotting, an immune system, and so on.

I don't understand what you mean by "proper quantities" and "error checking". If you compare clotting factors between you and I, these might be very different. Much greater differences can be found comparing different species.

Evolutionary biologists often compare different types of clotting mechanisms that are found in different organisms. For example, birds don't have platelets like mammals do, they have much larger cells that are really bad at stopping bleeding but also much less likely to form a clot in a blood vessel, which cause strokes in humans. Why's that? Many of these things seem to be distributed quite randomly.

Functionally complex? Yes. Organized and thoughtful? Not at all.

There's so much nonsense in nature, like why systems exist that lead to strokes. Would not a guiding, intelligent being have designed things better?

@wildgrass said
I don't understand what you mean by "proper quantities" and "error checking". If you compare clotting factors between you and I, these might be very different. Much greater differences can be found comparing different species.

Evolutionary biologists often compare different types of clotting mechanisms that are found in different organisms. For example, birds don't have ...[text shortened]... tems exist that lead to strokes. Would not a guiding, intelligent being have designed things better?

You can call it thoughtless but you can not point to any one who can reproduce or do it from scratch with a lot of thought, money, and resources, but under a rock with a mindless process you believe.

Your assessment falls flat if all you got is you wouldn’t have done it that way, while you have no clue why it works.

@moonbus said
"Ugliness" is a value judgment, not a fact in nature; nature knows no ugliness. Gross physical deformity, however, is a fact in nature, and tends to be de-selected.

A human with a club foot may yet become a great romantic poet (Lord Byron, for example). A tiger with a club foot is dying of starvation.

There’s always exceptions as it’s not a rule, but it is true.

@kellyjay said
You can call it thoughtless but you can not point to any one who can reproduce or do it from scratch with a lot of thought, money, and resources, but under a rock with a mindless process you believe.

Your assessment falls flat if all you got is you wouldn’t have done it that way, while you have no clue why it works.

What is your scientific assessment of all this KellyJay?

@divegeester said
What is your scientific assessment of all this KellyJay?

I doubt he understands science sufficiently to answer that question.

I believe we have just seen Kelly’s ultimate fallback argument: if humans cannot reproduce something from scratch, then only a God could have done it. However, because, first, science is evidence-based, and second, there is no evidence of transcendental causality anywhere inside the universe, this argument cannot be addressed in the context of science or the science forum here. This is a theological argument, and therefore belongs in the Spirituality forum.

@moonbus
What he said.