What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

originally posted by: Phantom423

There are over 500 journals and 200,000 articles on evolutionary biology.

Stop it with the appeal to majority. None of those articles document a case of actual evolution. They reside solely on the faith that it can happen.

Those articles include research into self-assembly and self-polymerization.

None of which include nucleotide monomers self-polymerizing. Which is the limiting step for biological life to come to be. You are so stubborn you can't admit you were wrong.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

It's not my fault none of you are very persuasive. It's probably because you don't have the answers I requested.

If you're not convinced that biological life and the genetic code came from an intelligent source, then it is not us who lack persuasiveness, but it is you who are too stubborn to leave your dead-end theory behind. This is exemplified by Phantom's unwillingness to admit she is wrong... it shows you have lost your objectivity and are now arguing from a dogmatic rather than a logical perspective.

Influence of Ionic Inorganic Solutes on Self-Assembly
and Polymerization Processes Related to Early Forms
of Life: Implications for a Prebiotic Aqueous Medium

A commonly accepted view is that life began in a marine environment, which would imply
the presence of inorganic ions such as Na1, Cl2, Mg21, Ca21, and Fe21. We have investigated
two processes relevant to the origin of life—membrane self-assembly and RNA polymerization—
and established that both are adversely affected by ionic solute concentrations much
lower than those of contemporary oceans. In particular, monocarboxylic acid vesicles, which
are plausible models of primitive membrane systems, are completely disrupted by low concentrations
of divalent cations, such as magnesium and calcium, and by high sodium chloride
concentrations as well. Similarly, a nonenzymatic, nontemplated polymerization of activated
RNA monomers in ice/eutectic phases (in a solution of low initial ionic strength) yields
oligomers with .80% of the original monomers incorporated, but polymerization in initially
higher ionic strength aqueous solutions is markedly inhibited. These observations suggest
that cellular life may not have begun in a marine environment because the abundance of ionic
inorganic solutes would have significantly inhibited the chemical and physical processes that
lead to self-assembly of more complex molecular systems. Key Words: Ionic inorganic
solutes—Self-assembly—Monoribonucleotide polymerization—Mononucleotide polymerization - Ocean—Fresh water—Protocells.
Astrobiology 2, 139–152.

Several RNA polymerization reaction models,
based on the spontaneous polymerization of activated
nucleotides,have been proposed (Sleeper
and Orgel, 1979; Sleeper et al., 1979; Sawai and
Ohno, 1981; Sawai, 1988). We recently demonstrated
an efficient, nonenzymatic ribonucleotide
polymerization (Kanavarioti et al., 2001). This
polymerization exploits submillimolar amounts
of lead ion as the catalyst and utilizes ice/eutectic
phases as the concentrating mechanism for
both organics and inorganics. Under such conditions
polymerization occurs with excellent yield
and efficiency (80–94% monomer incorporation
into oligomers up to 11 nucleotides in length). We
chose to use this reaction as a sensitive indicator
of salt effects on a polymerization reaction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS (partial)

Uridine 59-monophosphate (59-UMP), sodium
chloride, sodium nitrate, sodium perchlorate, sea
salts, rhodamine 6G, decyl alcohol (DOH), glycerol
monodecanoate (GMD), EDTA, and MES
buffer were purchased from Sigma Chemical Co.
(St. Louis, MO). Decanoic acid was obtained from
Fluka. Other reagents and solvents used were of
the highest grade commercially available.
The sodium salts of 59-UMP imidazolide
(ImpU) were synthesized as described earlier
(Kanavarioti et al., 1995). They contained ,3% of
59-UMP or pyrophosphate homodimer as impurities
as established by high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC) analysis on a C-18 column

The concentrations of ionic catalysts used here
for the polymerization of nucleotides into RNA
fragments that represent possible ribozyme precursors
are already in a range in which disruptive
interactions between membranes and divalent
cations were observed. However, these
values have been determined to be optimal for
the nonenzymatic, nontemplated synthesis of
RNA. It is therefore possible to find conditions
that are conducive to both RNA polymerization
and membrane self-assembly, albeit at less than
optimal rates. Experiments to investigate a
medium simultaneously conducive to both self assembly
and RNA polymerization are currently
underway in our laboratory.

a reply to: Phantom423

Why haven't you answered my question?

How did self assembly encode the sequence of a unique storage medium like DNA with information, encode the instructions to build the machinery to decode this information and encode non coding sequences with information that regulates the expression of coding regions?

Also, DON"T BLINDLY POST AN ABSTRACT. If you post an Abstract explain in your own words how the abstract relates to the thread. You have a habit of running to Google and then blindly posting an Abstract that has nothing to do with the thread.

I've asked you these questions over and over again and you just don't answer because you can't. This goes to the heart of the thread. You can't answer because self assembly can be seen a a product of intelligent design.

Self-Assembly of Protein Machines: Evidence for Evolution or Creation?

The Self-Assembly Lab at MIT has developed a pilot process to manufacture cell phones by self-assembly.

To do this, they designed their cell phone to consist of six parts that fit together in a lock-in-key manner. By placing the cell phone pieces into a tumbler that turns at the just-right speed, the pieces automatically combine with one another, bit by bit, until the cell phone is assembled.

Few errors occur during the assembly process. Only pieces designed to fit together combine with one another because of the lock-in-key fabrication.

reasons.org... on

Here's the video:



Another hallmark of design. I talked about how evolution is modular. Again, this hasn't been refuted on this thread or any other thread.

In order to accept a natural interpretation of evolution, you would have to accept that parts evolved separately and they just happened to work together. Again, illogical and devoid of any reason.

What the M.I.T. lab showed is, self assembly can occur when you have a modular design. When the parts are designed to come together and work together and they're designed together in a lock and key manner. We see this in evolution.

Here's more:

Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.

reasons.org... on

Modularity Enhances the Rate of Evolution in a Rugged Fitness Landscape

arxiv.org...

Quasispecies Theory for Evolution of Modularity

arxiv.org...

Modularity: genes, development and evolution

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

A Theory of Modular Evolution for Bacteriophages

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

So even people who accept a natural interpretation of evolution recognize there's a problem. You have these complex systems that are modular. Common sense tells them that modular design is the product of intelligence. There's belief enables them to accept the illogical and absurd though.

If every part of the iPhone could come together in a lock and key manner, it would greatly reduce the chances of the phone coming together. You add more pieces and it becomes impossible.

Also, with a natural interpretation of evolution, first the pieces have to evolve separately in a random natural, purposeless way.

Think of how absurd and illogical that is.

We know that when an intelligent mind builds a machine or a modular home, the intelligent mind first designs the parts. These parts are the right shape, size and come together at the right angles to work together to carry out a task.

People who accept an absurd natural interpretation of evolution talk about things like environmental pressures. Environmental pressures don't create the parts that just happen to work together. Environmental pressures and natural selection are things that happen AFTER THE FACT. They happen after the designed parts reach the environment.

Why would something random, natural and purposeless evolve any parts that work together?

The reason these absurdities are accepted is because of belief. A natural interpretation of evolution supports their atheism or scientific materialism and if there's a intelligent design it shatters their whole worldview and way of life and they have to ask is the intelligent designer God. So they will blindly accept the absurd in order to maintain their belief.

a reply to: neoholographic

Peer-reviewed research articles mean something. Your analogies fall short of even simple logic.

a reply to: Phantom423

You can’t disprove god so the possibility exists.

To proclaim God doesn’t exist is unscientific and so those using science to affirm their position should reconsider the basis of their argument.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Everything is influenced by the cosmos, be it by design or not.

The only thing separating us from the cosmos is selfish ego. Like it or not you are just a part of an intelligent universe, please describe the separation between your self and everything else around you.

Your thoughts are a product of the cosmos.

Definition of cosmos
1a : UNIVERSE sense 1
b(1) : an orderly harmonious systematic universe
— compare CHAOS
(2) : ORDER, HARMONY
2 : a complex orderly self-inclusive system

a reply to: Grenade

Where did I say that god does not exist?

a reply to: Phantom423

You didn’t, I just don’t think science has a place in the discussion, it’s a moot point. I actually enjoy reading your posts. If you don’t mind me asking do you believe in a traditional monotheistic religion?

a reply to: Grenade

I am Jewish, but don't particularly care for religious rituals. If there's a god that's fine with me. If there isn't, it's okay too. Until there's evidence either way, I simply don't care.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Grenade

I am Jewish, but don't particularly care for religious rituals. If there's a god that's fine with me. If there isn't, it's okay too. Until there's evidence either way, I simply don't care.

Herein lies the problem with materialism. You can never know the truth about anything so you stay stuck in Plato's cave. What a miserable existence.

You can only know truth through conscious experience.

You can say it rained today. This isn't objective truth. The rain can be caused by some underlying physics and that underlying physics can be cause by some other underlying physics and it's turtles all the way down.

So the only thing that I can say is true is that I had a conscious experience of rain today.

Our observable universe can be created by a universal mind that builds worlds and universes like we build civilizations. That Walmart has no objective existence or Fort Knox has no objective existence. These things started as an idea in an intelligent mind who brought that idea into existence.

I can see someone shot and killed but it's not objective truth that they died.

Maybe quantum immortality is right and he didn't die in all possible worlds. He might be waking up from a coma in one of these worlds.

All I can say is I had a conscious experience where he was shot and killed.

So, you sum up the materialist dilemma perfectly. You said:

If there's a god that's fine with me. If there isn't, it's okay too. Until there's evidence either way, I simply don't care.

Bah Humbug!

The only truth is conscious experience. It's the only way to know God.

Consciousness creates and experiences this is truth. Materialism leads nowhere and leaves you saying:

Bah Humbug, I don't care!

a reply to: Phantom423

Nowhere in there does it show an example of nucleotides self-polymerizing. The one example where they made RNA fragments from monomers used a catalyst. Just admit you were wrong it's ok.

As much as it may seem so, we are not your enemy.

a reply to: neoholographic



Herein lies the problem with materialism. You can never know the truth about anything so you stay stuck in Plato's cave. What a miserable existence.

You can only know truth through conscious experience.

You can say it rained today. This isn't objective truth. The rain can be caused by some underlying physics and that underlying physics can be cause by some other underlying physics and it's turtles all the way down.

If I said "it rained today" and rain indeed fell from the sky, that is objective truth. Why? Because I didn't ask where it came from or how it was made. I only said "It rained". And indeed it did. That is objective truth. Objective truth is truth when the conditions of the statement are met - i.e. "Did it rain?". Yes it did.

So the only thing that I can say is true is that I had a conscious experience of rain today.

Our observable universe can be created by a universal mind that builds worlds and universes like we build civilizations. That Walmart has no objective existence or Fort Knox has no objective existence. These things started as an idea in an intelligent mind who brought that idea into existence.

The observable universe could be built by a universal mind. The observable universe can also be a figment of your imagination. The observable universe could have been reconstructed from a previous universe. It could be infinite. We don't know. We have no mechanism to determine how the universe was created. Therefore, making statements about it is meaningless.

I can see someone shot and killed but it's not objective truth that they died.

If the person isn't breathing and has been declared dead by an EMT, he/she is indeed dead. He/she ain't coming back. Objective enough, I think.

Maybe quantum immortality is right and he didn't die in all possible worlds. He might be waking up from a coma in one of these worlds.

Not exactly. Hugh Everett's postulates were:

• EVERETT POSTULATE:
All isolated systems evolve according to the
Schrodinger equation d dt | i = − i ~H| i.

More succinctly, “physics is unitary”. Although this postulate
sounds rather innocent, it has far-reaching implications:

1. Corollary 1: the entire Universe evolves according
to the Schrodinger equation, since it is by definition
an isolated system.
2. Corollary 2: when a superposition state is observed,
there can be no definite outcome (wavefunction
collapse), since this would violate the Everett postulate.

There may be another world (or many worlds) where the person lived through the experience, died and came back, or died and went to heaven or hell. But the person who was shot in THIS universe, will never wake up in another parallel universe. Everett's theory is about branching of the universe where no two branches communicate. They are independent of each other regardless how many branches are formed.

All I can say is I had a conscious experience where he was shot and killed.

So, you sum up the materialist dilemma perfectly. You said:

If there's a god that's fine with me. If there isn't, it's okay too. Until there's evidence either way, I simply don't care.

Bah Humbug!

My statement is based solely on the fact that there's nothing to take into a lab and analyze. There's no "there" there. It's my opinion that it's a waste of time pondering things that have no substance, only philosophical armchair analysis.

The only truth is conscious experience. It's the only way to know God.

If you think you know your God through your personal conscious experience, that's fine. But don't expect anyone else to have the same experience. It's something in your mind, not your reality.

Consciousness creates and experiences this is truth. Materialism leads nowhere and leaves you saying:

Bah Humbug, I don't care!

Whatever you think materialism is, you better hold on to your hat because it's all around you. No one runs naked around the planet and expects to survive. We are born, we live, we survive and we die in a very material world.

a reply to: Phantom423

First, you quoted this from somewhere:

There may be another world (or many worlds) where the person lived through the experience, died and came back, or died and went to heaven or hell. But the person who was shot in THIS universe, will never wake up in another parallel universe. Everett's theory is about branching of the universe where no two branches communicate. They are independent of each other regardless how many branches are formed.

This illustrates the materialist dilemma.

Everett's theory wasn't taken seriously until Scientist ran into the fine tuning of the universe and said, Oh no, God.

They all then ran to many worlds which has many problems but one consequence of many worlds is quantum immortality. Again, they panicked. Oh no, we can't have immortality in any way. When you die that has to be it.

So now they come up with convoluted explanations to try and get around quantum immortality but they can't.

How can anyone die in one world when consciousness isn't distinct to any world? According to many worlds, your conscousness splits because your consciousness is just the brain.

How then can consciousness which is in many worlds be distinct to one world?

You want to say when you're dead, you're dead but materialism can't say that.

When do we die if the distinction between past, present and future is an illusion? Is the universe a hologram and the 3rd dimension an illusion like Susskind said? If so how can death be objective to a hologram? You said:

The observable universe could be built by a universal mind. The observable universe can also be a figment of your imagination. The observable universe could have been reconstructed from a previous universe. It could be infinite. We don't know. We have no mechanism to determine how the universe was created. Therefore, making statements about it is meaningless.

It's only meaningless to a materialist. They have no answers because materialism can't answer these questions. My conscious experience is real and it's outside of materialism. We can't extract ourselves from the concious me experience. You said:

Whatever you think materialism is, you better hold on to your hat because it's all around you. No one runs naked around the planet and expects to survive. We are born, we live, we survive and we die in a very material world.

There's not a shred of evidence that there's a material objective universe. In fact, quantum mechanics tells us local realism is dead:

Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.

www.nature.com...

a reply to: neoholographic

I didn't quote from anything. Those are my words.

I'm not a philosopher and I'm not particularly interested in god or materialism. So whatever your take on it is, that's fine with me. I have no opinion unless there's hard evidence to analyze.

a reply to: cooperton


That's because you can't understand what you're reading. Get a 101 level organic chemistry book and start there.
End of message.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

I didn't quote from anything. Those are my words.

I'm not a philosopher and I'm not particularly interested in god or materialism. So whatever your take on it is, that's fine with me. I have no opinion unless there's hard evidence to analyze.

Well if they're your words they're wrong.

You said:

Everett's theory is about branching of the universe where no two branches communicate. They are independent of each other regardless how many branches are formed.

Here's a theory of many interacting worlds which says they can reproduce quantum Mechanics through these interactions.

Now, Wiseman and colleagues have come up with an answer. Our universe, they claim, shares space with a large number of other universes, each of which follows the classical, Newtonian laws of physics. In this view, particles in our universe feel a subtle push from corresponding particles in all the other universes. Everything we think of as quantum weirdness is the result of these worlds bumping into each other (Physical Review X, doi.org/wtw).

“One way to think about it is that they coexist in the same space as our universe, like ghost universes,” Wiseman says. These other worlds are mostly invisible because they only interact with ours under very strict conditions, and only in very minute ways, he says, via a force acting between similar particles in different universes. But this interaction could be enough to explain quantum mechanics.

www.newscientist.com...

Ghost universes? Many interacting worlds?

There's problems with this theory as well, but it shows the materialist dilemma. It's turtles all the way down and there isn't any truth. So Bah Humbug!!

a reply to: neoholographic

If that's your opinion, fine.

a reply to: Phantom423

It's not an opinion.

There's not a shred of evidence the material world has an objective existence.

I can say I had the conscious experience of a rainy day.

Materialist can't say if the rain is real or not. Is it a simulation, is it a hologram, is it caused by some underlying physics that's caused by some other underlying physics?

I can know truth through conscious experience, materialist are just stuck in Plato's cave.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

That's because you can't understand what you're reading. Get a 101 level organic chemistry book and start there.
End of message.

Which will show you that nucleotide monomer polymerization is an endergonic (non-spontaneous) reaction. You can't be condescending towards people's intelligence when you are remarkably ignorant of your own mistakes. I am pressing you consistently hoping to extract some hint of objectivity.

a reply to: cooperton

Read the paper. Get an organic chemistry book. You don't have a clue.



Get the hook.