New Intelligent Design Documentary

I believe a virus needs a host, if there is no host then no virus, I'm not really sure about a proto-cell,
And a protocell is a purely theoretical device at this point. It's a purely made up entity to "fill in the gaps" of the origins of life. Let us also not forget, that once again, this is something that could theoretically be created in the lab. The creation of a "protocell" by humans still would not answer the question of how life spontaneously emerged from non-living chemical precursors.

Darwinian evolution has more holes than a brick of Swiss cheese. Much of Darwinism is based on pure speculation:
"The emergence of the first cells on the early Earth was the culmination of a long history of prior chemical and geophysical processes. Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings."(bolding mine)
http://m.cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/9/a002212.full

Now, this isn't my argument for creationism or design. However, it is an argument for the fact that the ideological stronghold Darwinism has over the entirety of science and science education is akin to the creationist stronghold on the insistence of a God that created all life. Darwinism has a small amount of physical evidence to support SOME aspects of evolution, but has virtually zero evidence to support the "accidental life from goo" hypothesis or random genetic mutation for the propogation of desirable traits.

Darwinism is full of "just so" scenarios and promises of future discovery. Anyone proposing a top down directive is laughed off the face of the earth for the same thing.

My question is, why is the very idea of top down informational evolution so very unpalatable to much of science? If this is where the evidence leads, why the fear in pursuing the research to that end? The a priori assumption that top-down informational evolution is impossible is just as idiotic as the a priori assumption that "God did it".
 
And a protocell is a purely theoretical device at this point. It's a purely made up entity to "fill in the gaps" of the origins of life. Let us also not forget, that once again, this is something that could theoretically be created in the lab. The creation of a "protocell" by humans still would not answer the question of how life spontaneously emerged from non-living chemical precursors.

Darwinian evolution has more holes than a brick of Swiss cheese. Much of Darwinism is based on pure speculation:
"The emergence of the first cells on the early Earth was the culmination of a long history of prior chemical and geophysical processes. Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings."(bolding mine)
http://m.cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/9/a002212.full

Now, this isn't my argument for creationism or design. However, it is an argument for the fact that the ideological stronghold Darwinism has over the entirety of science and science education is akin to the creationist stronghold on the insistence of a God that created all life. Darwinism has a small amount of physical evidence to support SOME aspects of evolution, but has virtually zero evidence to support the "accidental life from goo" hypothesis or random genetic mutation for the propogation of desirable traits.

Darwinism is full of "just so" scenarios and promises of future discovery. Anyone proposing a top down directive is laughed off the face of the earth for the same thing.

My question is, why is the very idea of top down informational evolution so very unpalatable to much of science? If this is where the evidence leads, why the fear in pursuing the research to that end? The a priori assumption that top-down informational evolution is impossible is just as idiotic as the a priori assumption that "God did it".
Hang on, is anyone really saying that life didn't arise from goo? Surely the only question is whether it was "driven" by supernatural forces? Or do you think a cell just magically appeared, fully formed (coincidentally made up of previously available elements)?
 
Hang on, is anyone really saying that life didn't arise from goo? Surely the only question is whether it was "driven" by supernatural forces? Or do you think a cell just magically appeared, fully formed (coincidentally made up of previously available elements)?
Nope. Not what I said. Did you read the entirety of my comment?
 
Hang on, is anyone really saying that life didn't arise from goo?
I'm not, but I do think that it - incredible odds of it forming and surviving - is better explained with mophic resonance: nature/Intelligence/something keeps trying (and failing and trying again) till a cell is formed and actually survives the harsh environment.
 
Last edited:
I've asked before, but I'll ask again anyway: what are the best books arguing for intelligent design? I've read Beyond Natural Selection, which is extremely fascinating material, but that's all I've read. Though my stance is that I'm sure there's intelligence behind life, I just don't see how we'd ever prove it by pointing to the material manifestation of life.
 
My question is, why is the very idea of top down informational evolution so very unpalatable to much of science? If this is where the evidence leads, why the fear in pursuing the research to that end? The a priori assumption that top-down informational evolution is impossible is just as idiotic as the a priori assumption that "God did it".
Scientists who think there is merit in top-down evolution (whatever that means) can surely go right ahead and investigate it. I'm not sure how they would do that. Do you have some ideas? Presumably IDers have tried various approaches, but they have been trounced.

Perhaps the reason it's "unpalatable" is because it has nothing to offer. I'm not sure why you think the evidence leads there. What evidence?

~~ Paul
 
And a protocell is a purely theoretical device at this point. It's a purely made up entity to "fill in the gaps" of the origins of life. Let us also not forget, that once again, this is something that could theoretically be created in the lab. The creation of a "protocell" by humans still would not answer the question of how life spontaneously emerged from non-living chemical precursors.

Darwinian evolution has more holes than a brick of Swiss cheese. Much of Darwinism is based on pure speculation:
"The emergence of the first cells on the early Earth was the culmination of a long history of prior chemical and geophysical processes. Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings."(bolding mine)
http://m.cshperspectives.cshlp.org/content/2/9/a002212.full

Now, this isn't my argument for creationism or design. However, it is an argument for the fact that the ideological stronghold Darwinism has over the entirety of science and science education is akin to the creationist stronghold on the insistence of a God that created all life. Darwinism has a small amount of physical evidence to support SOME aspects of evolution, but has virtually zero evidence to support the "accidental life from goo" hypothesis or random genetic mutation for the propogation of desirable traits.

Darwinism is full of "just so" scenarios and promises of future discovery. Anyone proposing a top down directive is laughed off the face of the earth for the same thing.

My question is, why is the very idea of top down informational evolution so very unpalatable to much of science? If this is where the evidence leads, why the fear in pursuing the research to that end? The a priori assumption that top-down informational evolution is impossible is just as idiotic as the a priori assumption that "God did it".


I am pretty sure that evolution doesn't claim to deal with the origin of life. But I agree with the rest of the post. :)
 
No, it's pretty easy, if there is no life then you can't get life,

All life is from life.
This is not drawing a line between nonlife and life. It's just asserting that wherever the line is, you can't get across it. But without drawing the line, how do you know?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
This is drawing a line between nonlife and life. It's just asserting that wherever the line is, you can't get across it. But without drawing the line, how do you know?

~~ Paul

The distinction is very easy, something that is not living isn't life, and something which is living is life.

Why is that difficult to understand?
 
The distinction is very easy, something that is not living isn't life, and something which is living is life.

Why is that difficult to understand?
First of all, I made a typo in my post #50. I've corrected it.

You just said that something that is not-alive is not alive and something that is alive is alive. That says nothing. You need to specify the boundary between not-alive and alive.

~~ Paul
 
First of all, I made a typo in my post #50. I've corrected it.

You just said that something that is not-alive is not alive and something that is alive is alive. That says nothing. You need to specify the boundary between not-alive and alive.

~~ Paul


What are you talking about?

It's so obvious a child could understand. There is no boundary, the only boundary is if something is living or not.

If you can't tell the difference between something living and something not alive then I can't help you.
 
Cell division - alive
A rock - not-alive

That's what the blog post was getting at: "Science is now so close to constructing cells capable of reproduction from a feedstock of simple molecules that we have to acknowledge that it will eventually be done."

If successful we would see non-alive molecules being combined to form a cell that divides. Some people in this thread seem to be arguing that either it shouldn't be possible, or that if possible, the cells shouldn't be considered alive.

Note: this isn't getting at the design part of the debate but at whether non-living things can become living.
 
I've asked before, but I'll ask again anyway: what are the best books arguing for intelligent design? I've read Beyond Natural Selection, which is extremely fascinating material, but that's all I've read. Though my stance is that I'm sure there's intelligence behind life, I just don't see how we'd ever prove it by pointing to the material manifestation of life.

This one looks intriguing: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6758333-seeking-god-in-science
 
What are you talking about?

It's so obvious a child could understand. There is no boundary, the only boundary is if something is living or not.

If you can't tell the difference between something living and something not alive then I can't help you.
Oh come on, you can't tell the difference either. Recall that you said:

"I believe a virus needs a host, if there is no host then no virus, I'm not really sure about a proto-cell,"

Your argument is "I don't know, but if you can't tell then you're an idiot."

~~ Paul
 
Oh come on, you can't tell the difference either.
~~ Paul
The same tired argument and back and forth based on an outdated fallacy! It's just like the paradigm of a flat-earth. In this case it is based on the tacit assumption where what we know about life - comes from observing its motion. "If it doesn't move - its dead; or if moves - kill it". The new paradigm, which I am employing does not lose what is learned from studying motion and chemistry; but includes what is learned from information science in the last 100 years.

There is a far clearer distinction between life and non-life; if viewed through the lens of communication. A virus receives signals from its environment and responds with individualized and adaptive behavior. They are fracking alive. A "protocell" - in its hypothetical state - that receives signals and responds appropriately to them may be alive. If it doesn't it is dead. It may also not be alive if it must get supplemental information to sustain itself in a natural environment.

I think the clearer example: is a seed (one cell or many). It can live for very long times and in extreme environments with no motion - yet respond to the affordance granting growth - when signaled from the environment. The telling criteria for sorting inanimate things from living things are about information --- NOT motion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top