Hydrogen Fuel Cell Found in Nature

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: tanstaafl

its actually not,

It actually is... otherwise, by all means, explain exactly how your response was even remotely relevant to my precise question:

"You claim these mutations are not random? Then what, pray tell, is driving them? In other words, how can you be so arrogantly certain that there is no intelligent design behind it all?"

By all means, point to even one sentence in your long winded response addressing that question.

No idea what long winded response you mean. ErosA433 that you replied to only wrote one sentence. My response was basically one sentence explaining what is non random, the selection process. Then I wrote a second sentence introducing an external source explaining the difference between the selection process and the random mutations, which even gave examples.

I think it's not just you and cooperton, but the intelligent design proponents in general who fail to show good faith in discussions of evolution by consistently pretending the selection process doesn't exist and claiming evolution is just based on random mutations. This was pointed out in an article debunking the mathematical claims about protein-folding too:

The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism

The failure to consider the role of natural selection in evolution is really such a crass blunder that scientists rightly consider the persistence of such arguments among anti-evolutionists evidence of their fundamental lack of good faith.

BANG! He hit the nail squarely on the head with that observation and it's certainly very relevant to this thread and the claims about what a so-called "random" process that's not really random can or cannot do.

Another problem with the intelligent design argument, is if you have to invoke that to explain complexity, you have just created a bigger problem and not solved anything. Because whoever this intelligent designer is would have to be even more complex than the folded proteins or whatever, and how could such an intelligent designer exist if it wasn't designed by an even more intelligent designer? And then you need and even more intelligent designer to design the more intelligent designer who designed the intelligent designer, it's as ridiculous as the "turtles all the way down" argument on what holds up the flat earth, there's no end in such an infinite loop of illogical thinking. If you're not familiar with turtles all the way down, here's an artist's conception, though this is contradicted by NASA imagery:



So the parallels are as follows.
Q. What holds up the earth?
A: A giant turtle.
Q: What holds up the giant turtle?
A: Another giant turtle
-continues with infinite loop

Now intelligent design:
Q: How did such complexity in life arise?
A: It must have been from an intelligent designer.
Q: How did such a complex intelligent designer arise?
A: There must have been a more intelligent designer, to design the the complex intelligent designer
Q: How did the even more intelligent designer arise?
-continues with infinite loop

So if the only way you can explain complexity is with an intelligent designer, you really haven't explained the complexity, you've just added something even more complex, which needs even more explaining, which leads to an infinite loop.

Maybe stop calling evolution "random", realize that natural selection exists and is non-random, and can lead to complexity.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

Now intelligent design:
Q: How did such complexity in life arise?
A: It must have been from an intelligent designer.
Q: How did such a complex intelligent designer arise?

No this one has already been theologically discussed for ages. It is more like this:

Now intelligent design:
Q: How did such complexity in life arise?
A: It must have been from an intelligent designer.
Q: How did such a complex intelligent designer arise?
A: He always existed, and therefor never had to come into being. This also suffices for how something exists at all, since something cannot come from nothing, this something must have always existed. This is the Alpha-Omega referred to as God.

I think it's not just you and cooperton, but the intelligent design proponents in general who fail to show good faith in discussions of evolution by consistently pretending the selection process doesn't exist

You're getting ahead of yourself, The selection process is irrelevant if mutations can't suffice to make a new protein fold to be selected for to gain new traits.

Again, fantastic work. Thank you for the encouragement that faith is NOT a mindless exercise. As your scriptural quote confirms, the things that are made reveal His hand in the vast array of complex living systems that are in effect today.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: tanstaafl

What you don't understand is that science requires evidence. There's no evidence for or against the existence of a god or any other supernatural creature.

What you are doing is simply ignoring the fact that the very nature of negentropy when it comes to life is, itself, evidence. Not proof, but evidence, enough to - as I said before - at least be willing to shrug and say 'I ... don't ... know.".

But even after your own words admitting 'there is no evidence for oragainst (ignoring the fact that for many, there actually is), you then turn it on its head and claim that 'no evidence for' = proof against.

That's why science doesn't deal with it. It's a personal choice. No one is obliged to acknowledge the possibility of any supernatural creature. It just isn't necessary. You believe it, fine. But don't force your beliefs on others.

More deflection.

No one is trying to force you to believe anything. You are the one ridiculing and dismissing anyone who sees the evidence for it as anti-science.

No evidence = no science. That's it.

Yes, but again, no evidence does NOT = proof against it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: tanstaafl

Look up Gibbs free energy in biological systems. If you don't understand it, then do the research.

I don't need to understand everything he writes to understand that life violates the law of entropy, and there is a reason for that. I claim it very easily could be intelligent design, you claim it is magical mutations.

P.S. This is for your benefit, not mine. I'm not discussing science with you or Cooperton because neither one of you is a trained scientist.

Gee, can you be any more condescending?

Yes, yes, I know, trained scientists have all of the answers. They are in fact the ones who gave us mass murders under the guise of treating COVID, destroyed the worlds economies with their illogical, irrational and just plain wrong advice preaching lockdowns, useless (damaging even) mask mandates, etc etc ad nauseum.

Sorry bub, I have ZERO respect for 'trained scientists', you now are in the same boat as everyone else - you have to EARN respect, and most of you simply cannot do that whether it is due to your hyper-inflated egos or smug delusions of grandeur.

Yes, I'm now jaded against 'trained scientists' - as is every other sane, rational being.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: tanstaafl
No idea what long winded response you mean.

You're right, I was referring to yours - the one with the longer still irrelevant sourced material.

ErosA433 that you replied to only wrote one sentence.

Yes, you two are tag teaming... so what? I'll treat you as one poster - hell, mayne you are.

My response was basically one sentence explaining what is non random, the selection process.

Which was, as I said, totally and completely irrelevant and non-responsive to my post/question - you know, the one you were replying to and even quoted?

Then I wrote a second sentence introducing an external source explaining the difference between the selection process and the random mutations, which even gave examples.

Yes - and again, totally and completely irrelevant and non-responsive to my post/question - you know, the one you were replying to and even quoted?

So if the only way you can explain complexity is with an intelligent designer, you really haven't explained the complexity, you've just added something even more complex, which needs even more explaining, which leads to an infinite loop.

Only if you insist on complicating it more than it has to be.

Also, you are confused. I'm not claiming it is due to intelligent design, I'm saying it could be.

Maybe stop calling evolution "random", realize that natural selection exists and is non-random, and can lead to complexity.

Maybe stop saying evolution isn't random when there is a large component of randomness to it, realize that natural selection is a theory and that is all it is, the fact that it - whatever it is - leads to complexity is a mystery yet remajining to be solved.

The arrogance of 'trained scientists' who think that what they 'know' is all there defies belief.

a reply to: tanstaafl

What a coincidence! Arvin must have read this thread! Posted 30 minutes ago!

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: tanstaafl

What a coincidence! Arvin must have read this thread! Posted 30 minutes ago!

Thanks for posting a video that supports everything I've been saying...

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: tanstaafl

What a coincidence! Arvin must have read this thread! Posted 30 minutes ago!

Thanks for posting a video that supports everything I've been saying...

Glad you learned something.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ErosA433
a reply to: tanstaafl

its actually not, and most of the arrogance comes from those who wish to insert god into everything as a default.

I'm still waiting on your response.

I dont owe you a reply, your inability to understand the holes in your own scientific knowledge or reasoning are actually not my responsibility to fill.

However... lets go with a singular logical issue

1) You are specifically talking about protein folding for enzymes. You know, if you hit the goal just once, you have an important starting point that doesn't require vast modification or starting from zero to produce other useful functional groups.
2) The only requirement for the mutations is life, viable dna or rna and chemical or radiation, we have that in abundance on earth. The Earth, statistically isn't the only planet that harbors life in the universe.
3) The process is not totally random
4) The paper you site, measured it, or simulated it... some parts im not sure if the paper claims a measurement or simple brute force simulation... both don't support your claims because
4a) A simulation is by design only as complex as your knowledge on a system, so you have known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and the accuracy is only going to be representative of what you know about a process.
Example : Try explaining a transistor using classical mechanics... you cant... so lets say your simulation, and the knowledge of the processes occuring is not complete... you have an unknown unknown that can come into play. Hense the accuracy of simulations always being tested against reality. So if you are to run a simulation many many times and try and pick out the solutions that work by random chance, you cannot in any way state they are equivalent to nature... without GREAT care... which is the part you fall short on. you are simply equating the two because... you want to pull god from the machine any chance you can.
4b) If its a measurement of actual proteins mutations... then... well they measured it didnt they. Meaning they didnt have to run their experiment for longer than the existance of the universe.
5) Back on the universe, just running the numbers, the amount of galaxies out there, the amount of stars, and the amount of planets that have the chemistry and conditions to have life emerge.... are as i said, statistically vast. So it happening, observably (hello from Earth) doesn't mean a intelligent design was required at all, it just simply says we ran the numbers enough and boop hello, life.

originally posted by: ErosA433


1) You are specifically talking about protein folding for enzymes. You know, if you hit the goal just once, you have an important starting point that doesn't require vast modification or starting from zero to produce other useful functional groups.

Active groups are not similar enough for this statement to be true. They have been described as lock and key, due to the specificity of active sites to their respective substrate. So no, you can't just easily make all the other active sites from one active site with ease

2) The only requirement for the mutations is life, viable dna or rna and chemical or radiation, we have that in abundance on earth. The Earth, statistically isn't the only planet that harbors life in the universe.

DNA and proteins monomers do not self-polymerize in water though, according Gibb's free energy in thermodynamics. This is why they need ribosomes to be able to properly bond them together into chains that can become functioning biological components. There's currently a 10 million dollar prize for anyone who can make life form non-life though, maybe take your chance if you think it's so easy.

4) The paper you site, measured it, or simulated it... some parts im not sure if the paper claims a measurement or simple brute force simulation... both don't support your claims because
4a) A simulation is by design only as complex as your knowledge on a system, so you have known knowns, known unknowns and unknown unknowns, and the accuracy is only going to be representative of what you know about a process.
Example : Try explaining a transistor using classical mechanics... you cant... so lets say your simulation, and the knowledge of the processes occuring is not complete... you have an unknown unknown that can come into play. Hense the accuracy of simulations always being tested against reality. So if you are to run a simulation many many times and try and pick out the solutions that work by random chance, you cannot in any way state they are equivalent to nature... without GREAT care... which is the part you fall short on. you are simply equating the two because... you want to pull god from the machine any chance you can.
4b) If its a measurement of actual proteins mutations... then... well they measured it didnt they. Meaning they didnt have to run their experiment for longer than the existance of the universe.
5) Back on the universe, just running the numbers, the amount of galaxies out there, the amount of stars, and the amount of planets that have the chemistry and conditions to have life emerge.... are as i said, statistically vast. So it happening, observably (hello from Earth) doesn't mean a intelligent design was required at all, it just simply says we ran the numbers enough and boop hello, life.

Bro even if all the theorized planets in the known universe were to be exactly like earth with bacteria on it, that would still not suffice the odds of creating one active group on an enzyme. That's how crazy unlikely it is to create an active group through mutations. There are supposedly 20 sextillion planets in the known universe, obviously they dont all have earth-like properties but let's pretend they are all like earth just for demonstration sake. 20 sextillion planets is 2e22, so if we multiply that by the total annual mutation rate on a bacteria-harboring planet, 3.65e33 ( < - - link to how we got that number), then we multiply those two numbers together and that gets us about 7e55 mutations per year in the entire known universe. This is still drastically insufficient to be able to hit the probability of 1e77. It would take 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years (1e77 divided by 7e55) to make one active group on any of these planets through mutating genomes.

So it is clear that a designer is required to code these meticulous active sites that allow proteins to have their proper functioning, and to allow the perpetuity of all biological organisms.