Reasons why ID must be considered (Introduction)

by John Kalber, Friday, July 07, 2017, 17:22 (374 days ago) @ David Turell

“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.
Naturally, I think my phrasing is fine – but... You give no indication of what you find wrong. Introducing an unusual idea within 5000 characters is difficult. There are many potential objections to ‘accommodate’!
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. Before complexity, (such as a cell or molecule) can form there must already be a suitable living structure in place.
As everything is composed of atoms, and am not a biologist (and neither are many who may read these comments), I use generalities where they convey (I had hoped!) what point I am making. As my reason is to describe the very ‘difficult’, I favour such a relatively simple approach. Accurate terminology is relatively unimportant when offering an idea for discussion.
First life must already be formed to some complex extent
Once a cell is formed, the ‘rules’ for further development are limited (in ‘direction) by the nature of the engaged organism. From this early stage, the ‘casual’ engagement with other atoms is less of a factor. Probably still able to attract additional atoms, internal processes are taking on a high level of responsibility and later dominate almost entirely.
The ‘almost’ relates to catastrophic encounters involving comet impact and disruption caused by interplanetary close passage. These may generate massive charges of ‘whatever’ that can penetrate and disturb DNA. This may indeed so re-order these characteristics that new species are createdawaS.
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.
The principal arena of formative change, is I think, much as I suggest. Once complex the necessary advances are, almost certainly genetic (to coin a phrase). These processes carry an integral logical outcome (addition) that effectively can only result in (some variety) of what we see.
It occurs to me that a further insight may help! When considering these from my atheist stance, it is obvious that the forces of nature, pre-programmed by their existing inherent constituent, parts make possible virtually unlimited variation!
Were this not so, how else could dear old Mother Nature do her job?
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.

David“This requires polymerization enzymes which are giant molecules to facilitate the process which would take centuries of time without them. When these millions of molecules are put together in a cell and work in coordinated fashion, life appears. To further complicate matters all proteins as 3-D molecules are either right or left handed. All 20 essential amino acids, the building blocks of life are left-handed and DNA is right-handed. If one makes these molecules without controls, one gets 50/50 right and left as a result, but life doesn't accept this.”[/i][/i][/i][/i]

Well, initially anyway, centuries or more were indeed so needed. If you are saying such molecules were fist built in the slowly, slowly practices of Mother Nature, I agree!

As to handedness, surely nature will suck it and see! Such factors, once usefully accepted, will prosper automatically. Nature is fully so endowed and – like it or not – no other rational answer serves. If you suggest that some super intelligence may be possible in some hidden part of the Universe, I totally disagree. We are the highest known intelligence and beyond what amounts to ‘wishful’ thinking there is – absolutely no evidence whatsoever. While I recognise the ongoing need to seriously examine any feasible notion, the case for it being purely Mother Nature is plain.

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!
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.

Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum