Reasons why ID must be considered (Introduction)

by David Turell @, Saturday, July 08, 2017, 15:11 (157 days ago) @ reblak

John: “John” is fine David. I am a ‘devout’ atheist & this allows me to consider every idea from a rational standpoint. I agree entirely with your description of the highly complex later stages of evolution. I am disappointed that you don't like my account of how evolution is clearly and totally automatically directed.

You shall be John, 'the devout atheist'. The earlier stages of evolution are just as convoluted as the later stages.

John: Naturally, I think my phrasing is fine – but... You give no indication of what you find wrong.

See below:

John: I dealt in minimum detail with my view of the likely formation of the inorganic then with the idea of an infinitely more complex early lifeform. As Mother Nature unquestionably (leaving out God nonsense) made both forms kinds of structure, the initial steps could be only atomic. David, you can surely only agree on this.

No I don't. Please explain your concept of "Mother Nature". Inorganic chemistry is a fairly simple combination of elemental atoms; organic chemistry is very different: atoms, yes, but very complex ways of organizing highly specific functioning molecules, especially in living cells.

John: Before complexity, (such as a cell or molecule) can form there must already be a suitable living structure in place.

But that doesn't explain how to get from a rocky Earth to living structure! Darwin never attempted it, except for his warm pond comment.

John: First life must already be formed to some complex extent

Tell me how. Origin of life is an atheists nightmare. It looks miraculous.

John: Before all the complexities you refer to can form, the organism must, blindly, be built to accommodate them. They don’t just appear. The building blocks, if Mother Nature is responsible, must be of a very simple kind, no matter how (seemingly) difficult you find it.

I could substitute God for your Mother Nature, and make the same sense. "They just don't appear" is true.

John: So, David, it becomes obvious (to me) that as a totally unguided process takes these steps towards complexity,(e.g.H2O ), why should you doubt her capacity to engage effectively when highly organised systems are in place? Agnostics, doubting a creator, must surely see the rational that natural forces may have the capabilities I suggest.

Water is necessary for life, but no one doing OOL research for 60 years has found a way to get from inorganic to organic.

John: : As to handedness, surely nature will suck it and see!
Amino-acids were formed by life itself, probably in the way I suggest. Once formed they aid other developments, so on down the line. If you are moved challenge these ideas, show me how it may reasonably be done. Perhaps it is no coincidence that some 3.8 billion years were required!

Of the 20 essential amino acids for life nine essential amino acids needed for life are not made by life. The word 'essential' means they must be supplied to living organisms in diet. Life does not make them. Six others are conditionally made, and there are five which life makes easily:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_amino_acid

John: I agree with the online idea. My email suggestion was that the 5000 characters limitation can be overcome in expanding a view. No other reason.

Others follow our discussions, so it is best to be concise, not overly verbose. Look at natures wonders thread to see the amazing number of views at the bottom of entries.


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum