Encoded information is evidence of Intelligent Design

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1



To think the scientific establishment is free of dogma, is either nativity, or ignorance...

It's a strawman argument (out of the many you have made).

Dogma is used for religious purposes but scientists can by stuck to their own views and perceptions with the only difference these views and perceptions are often accompanied by some evidence which may not be conclusive but at least there is something to hold on to.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Due to the progress of science we can see that all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes

We don't have a known mechanism for abiogenesis to occur through natural causes, so it remains speculative.

so I don't know why you and others think the creation of the universes and the emergence of life have supernatural causes. No evidence exist there something supernatural about any of these two.

Extra-dimensional sentience isn't necessarily "supernatural".. The theorized tachyonic realms could potentially have sentience that is able to travel through time.

Just like shadows are created by the light, I think the material world is a sort of hologram that represents the deeper states of existence.

It must be repeated all physical and biochemical processes have natural causes and there is none that we know of having supernatural causes.

Speculation isn't the right word but scientific hypothesis based on evidence and there is a lot of evidence towards abiogenesis. There is zero evidence towards intelligent design by the God of the Old Testament. That's clearly a religious belief motivated by faith.

The talk about extra dimensional beings is not only irrelevant to the topic but a figment of imagination of some internet users.

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: Venkuish1

Notice how the word supernatural has natural in it?

Mabe it's that average people can only fathom average natural phenomenons...

Are you ok with terminology?

Supernatural is what it is.
Inventions of people who try to understand how nature works but yet they involve entities with powers that are going beyond the natural laws ot even are the origins of these natural laws. Nonsense in a few words.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

The talk about extra dimensional beings is not only irrelevant to the topic but a figment of imagination of some internet users.

Even the government is starting to disclose the fact that there are aliens... Given the various attributes of these UAP sightings, it sounds like these beings are extra-dimensional.

Speculation isn't the right word but scientific hypothesis based on evidence and there is a lot of evidence towards abiogenesis

No there isn't, amino acid polymerization is one of the many, many hurdles that are shown to not have a natural solution without enzymatic catalysis.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

The talk about extra dimensional beings is not only irrelevant to the topic but a figment of imagination of some internet users.

Even the government is starting to disclose the fact that there are aliens... Given the various attributes of these UAP sightings, it sounds like these beings are extra-dimensional.

Speculation isn't the right word but scientific hypothesis based on evidence and there is a lot of evidence towards abiogenesis

No there isn't, amino acid polymerization is one of the many, many hurdles that are shown to not have a natural solution without enzymatic catalysis.

Abiogenesis is the prevailing scientific hypothesis and amino acid polymerization doesn't have supernatural causes despite your efforts to present it in these threads which have been debunked.

UAPs are irrelevant in this thread and the extra dimensional 'theories' are as I said figments of the imagination of users with no evidence accompanied.

The government doesn't have to disclose anything about the existence of aliens. Aliens have nothing to do with this topic either and if they exist (which is very likely) have been created just like all biological entities are created in the first place.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Abiogenesis is the prevailing scientific hypothesis and amino acid polymerization doesn't have supernatural causes despite your efforts to present it in these threads which have been debunked.

Natural cause is insufficient for abiogenesis. Thermodynamics disallows it. If there were an experiment that showed the plausibility of amino acid polymerization in water then it would be easy to find, and a nobel prize winning experiment.

UAPs are irrelevant in this thread and the extra dimensional 'theories' are as I said figments of the imagination of users with no evidence accompanied.

The government doesn't have to disclose anything about the existence of aliens. Aliens have nothing to do with this topic either and if they exist (which is very likely) have been created just like all biological entities are created in the first place.

Intelligent existence beyond this dimension would indicate this world could have been created by something that is not limited to this world's physics. Given the thermodynamic hurdles of abiogenesis, and the apparent intelligently contrived cellular machinery, this makes the most sense to me.

a reply to: cooperton

Even the government is starting to disclose the fact that there are aliens... Given the various attributes of these UAP sightings, it sounds like these beings are extra-dimensional.

So you're okay with extra dimensions but not animo acids in molecular clouds?

You really shouldn't use the multiverse as a hands-on creationist.

The multiverse argues there's nothing special about the laws of physics. Or anything about our existence.

In Superstring theory these higher dimensions ACTUALLY represent a parameter of the multiversal existence.

Like dimension 1-4 are obvious.

But then the higher dimensions come in. Add that's why there's a many worlds interpretation of the multiverse.

Basically, as pseudoscientific as this seems, here's a dimensional run-down:

phys.org...

If we could see on through to the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and differences between our world and other possible ones.

In the sixth, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimension, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.

In the seventh dimension, you have access to the possible worlds that start with different initial conditions. Whereas in the fifth and sixth, the initial conditions were the same and subsequent actions were different, here, everything is different from the very beginning of time. The eighth dimension again gives us a plane of such possible universe histories, each of which begins with different initial conditions and branches out infinitely (hence why they are called infinities).

In the ninth dimension, we can compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics and initial conditions. In the tenth and final dimension, we arrive at the point in which everything possible and imaginable is covered. Beyond this, nothing can be imagined by us lowly mortals, which makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive in terms of dimensions.

So to posit "interdimensional", you are absolutely positing a plane of worlds with different universal histories.

So we are in string theory territory.

And string theory has an interesting answer for universal laws. Infinity of infinity is implied up around 8, 9, and 10.

So this insignificant universe has life, and everything the way it does, because it has to. Every variation in every conceivable way exists and HAS TO. Hence, EVERY specifically 'designed' universe is merely a requirement of the theory.

If you really think about it, that circumvents intelligence being necessary. Because IT HAS to happen. That, or intelligence is an interchangeable term for infinity. God is LITERALLY EVERYTHING in every conceivable way.

That's why 'Interdimensional' isn't the hands-on creationist's friend.

I don't personally ascribe to it, but (in string theory) these are all actually one dimension vibrating lines.



I'm hazy on the Higgs-Boson, I know supersymmetry lines up with the Higgs-Field and symmetry-breaking, but it still seems off.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Abiogenesis is the prevailing scientific hypothesis and amino acid polymerization doesn't have supernatural causes despite your efforts to present it in these threads which have been debunked.

Natural cause is insufficient for abiogenesis. Thermodynamics disallows it. If there were an experiment that showed the plausibility of amino acid polymerization in water then it would be easy to find, and a nobel prize winning experiment.

UAPs are irrelevant in this thread and the extra dimensional 'theories' are as I said figments of the imagination of users with no evidence accompanied.

The government doesn't have to disclose anything about the existence of aliens. Aliens have nothing to do with this topic either and if they exist (which is very likely) have been created just like all biological entities are created in the first place.

Intelligent existence beyond this dimension would indicate this world could have been created by something that is not limited to this world's physics. Given the thermodynamic hurdles of abiogenesis, and the apparent intelligently contrived cellular machinery, this makes the most sense to me.

This is a completely made up but debunked argument. There is nobody who has proved abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible. You may forget easily what you've written but you seem to be gravitating along the same arguments and even try to change the words to suit your flawed logic. From thermodynamically impossible to thermodynamically least favourable (in various threads)

You even linked a paper from Professor Bruce Martin who was Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. This is the only paper you linked with no corroborating evidence or any materials. (The paper doesn't support your completely unsubstantiated assertions).

The paper has no relevance to your claims that abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible and the author has never made the claim. This is your claim in your attempt to push your narrative.

The author was one of the editors of the Skeptical Inquirer and he fiercely opposed creationism and debunked its premises.

He is on record for saying the following:

In contrast, the premise of Intelligent Design fails to meet even the most fundamental elements of rational inquiry. By being able to account for everything by divine edict. Intelligent Design explains nothing.

It should be clear to anyone the paper you linked and his author have nothing to do with your flawed interpretations. At the same time you keep trying to circulate the same debunked arguments.

The 'intelligence existence beyond this dimension' is one of the phrases you have picked up from online forums of people who dont know what they are talking about.

It's about time you switch back to the argument why if evolution is true E.Coli hasn't evolved to become another bacterium like Chlamydia trachomatis.

originally posted by: Degradation33
So you're okay with extra dimensions but not animo acids in molecular clouds?

As I said before, it is theoretical, but it would explain certain unexplainable phenomenon regarding UAP's. I don't think they're extra-terrestrial, I think they're extra-dimensional. Apparently, the only other tangible dimension would be a 'tachyon' universe, in which the "inhabitants" exist in 3 time and 1 spatial dimensions, compared to our 3 spatial and 1 time dimensions.



link

Here is a demonstration of what a tachyon manifesting in our universe could look like:

You really shouldn't use the multiverse as a hands-on creationist.

The multiverse argues there's nothing special about the laws of physics. Or anything about our existence.

In Superstring theory these higher dimensions ACTUALLY represent a parameter of the multiversal existence.

Like dimension 1-4 are obvious.

But then the higher dimensions come in. Add that's why there's a many worlds interpretation of the multiverse.

Basically, as pseudoscientific as this seems, here's a dimensional run-down:

phys.org...

If we could see on through to the fifth dimension, we would see a world slightly different from our own that would give us a means of measuring the similarity and differences between our world and other possible ones.

In the sixth, we would see a plane of possible worlds, where we could compare and position all the possible universes that start with the same initial conditions as this one (i.e. the Big Bang). In theory, if you could master the fifth and sixth dimension, you could travel back in time or go to different futures.

In the seventh dimension, you have access to the possible worlds that start with different initial conditions. Whereas in the fifth and sixth, the initial conditions were the same and subsequent actions were different, here, everything is different from the very beginning of time. The eighth dimension again gives us a plane of such possible universe histories, each of which begins with different initial conditions and branches out infinitely (hence why they are called infinities).

In the ninth dimension, we can compare all the possible universe histories, starting with all the different possible laws of physics and initial conditions. In the tenth and final dimension, we arrive at the point in which everything possible and imaginable is covered. Beyond this, nothing can be imagined by us lowly mortals, which makes it the natural limitation of what we can conceive in terms of dimensions.

So to posit "interdimensional", you are absolutely positing a plane of worlds with different universal histories.

Tachyonic realms would be different than just stacking spatial dimensions. It involves actually less spatial dimensions and more time dimensions.

originally posted by: Venkuish1 There is nobody who has proved abiogenesis is thermodynamically impossible.

No it is well known that amino acid polymerization is thermodynamically unfavorable in water. Like lighting a match underwater. There is no known possible way to overcome this hurdle in conditions that would be inhabitable for life.

It should be clear to anyone the paper you linked and his author have nothing to do with your flawed interpretations

Where was my flaw mathematically? I used all well-known estimates of mutation rates, total bacteria on earth, generational duration, and the probability of forming a functioning active site on a protein. I've noticed you haven't particularly said what was wrong with my math, you are just saying it must be wrong because others don't believe as I do.

a reply to: cooperton

You may find this an interesting read...

chemistry-europe.onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

At the origin, the emergence of proteins was based on crucial prebiotic stages in which simple amino acids-based building blocks spontaneously evolved from the prebiotic soup into random proto-polymers called protoproteins. Despite advances in modern peptide synthesis, these prebiotic chemical routes to protoproteins remain puzzling. We discuss in this perspective how polymer science and systems chemistry are reaching a point of convergence in which simple monomers called N-carboxyanhydrides would be able to form such protoproteins via the emergence of a protometabolic cycle involving aqueous polymerization and featuring macromolecular Darwinism behavior.

And this too.

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

We report unambiguous spectroscopic evidence of peptide bond formation at the air–water interface, yielding a possible mechanism providing insight into the formation of modern ribosomal peptide bonds, and a means for the emergence of peptides on early Earth. Protein synthesis in aqueous environments, facilitated by sequential amino acid condensation forming peptides, is a ubiquitous process in modern biology, and a fundamental reaction necessary in prebiotic chemistry. Such reactions, however, are condensation reactions, requiring the elimination of a water molecule for every peptide bond formed, and are thus unfavorable in aqueous environments both from a thermodynamic and kinetic point of view. We use the hydrophobic environment of the air–water interface as a favorable venue for peptide bond synthesis, and demonstrate the occurrence of this chemistry with in situ techniques using Langmuir-trough methods and infrared reflection absorption spectroscopy. Leucine ethyl ester (a small amino acid ester) first partitions to the water surface, then coordinates with Cu2+ ions at the interface, and subsequently undergoes a condensation reaction selectively forming peptide bonds at the air–water interface.

a reply to: cooperton

This paper discusses water mediated peptide bond formation. Read the paper and we'll discuss it.


par.nsf.gov...#:~:text=Amino%20acids%20were%20the%20most%20abundant%20of%20the,the%20condensation%20reaction%20that%20prod uces%20a%20water%20molecule.

Water-Mediated Peptide Bond Formation in the Gas Phase: A Model
Prebiotic Reaction
Ariel G. Gale, Tuguldur T. Odbadrakh, Benjamin T. Ball, and George C. Shields*
Cite This: J. Phys. Chem. A 2020, 124, 4150−4159 Read

I may not respond for a while as my brother is quite ill and may have to travel. But I'll get back to you.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

This paper discusses water mediated peptide bond formation. Read the paper and we'll discuss it.


par.nsf.gov...#:~:text=Amino%20acids%20were%20the%20most%20abundant%20of%20the,the%20condensation%20reaction%20that%20prod uces%20a%20water%20molecule.

Water-Mediated Peptide Bond Formation in the Gas Phase: A Model
Prebiotic Reaction
Ariel G. Gale, Tuguldur T. Odbadrakh, Benjamin T. Ball, and George C. Shields*
Cite This: J. Phys. Chem. A 2020, 124, 4150−4159 Read

I may not respond for a while as my brother is quite ill and may have to travel. But I'll get back to you.

The poster keeps recycling debunked arguments and claims. I am sure you know this by now just as everyone else who has been participating in these threads.

We have linked a range of papers which completely refute the claims made by the poster even though it wasn't necessary as the burden of proof is on him.

A few days ago I linked another paper discussing the recent discovery of a new enzyme found in the sea. The poster claims there is not enough time for the formation of biologically useful proteins. Enzymes are proteins...

He has based his claim on a complete misrepresentation of a paper that he linked only the abstract and copy pasted his 'conclusions' from his reddit account to appear that the author of the paper has said what the poster claimed. The author of the paper was a well known anti-creationist who debunked creationism as an editor of the Skeptical Enquirer.

These things need to be repeated as the poster wants to recycle the already debunked creationists arguments.

You could now expect the next one to appear shortly. If evolution is true then why monkeys haven't evolved to become humans and why the E.Coli bacterium hasn't evolved to become another bacterium.

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

This paper discusses water mediated peptide bond formation. Read the paper and we'll discuss it.


par.nsf.gov...#:~:text=Amino%20acids%20were%20the%20most%20abundant%20of%20the,the%20condensation%20reaction%20that%20prod uces%20a%20water%20molecule.

Water-Mediated Peptide Bond Formation in the Gas Phase: A Model
Prebiotic Reaction
Ariel G. Gale, Tuguldur T. Odbadrakh, Benjamin T. Ball, and George C. Shields*
Cite This: J. Phys. Chem. A 2020, 124, 4150−4159 Read

I may not respond for a while as my brother is quite ill and may have to travel. But I'll get back to you.

I will read more when I get the chance, but from what I saw from a glance it is only able to dimerize glycine in these specialized conditions. If there are mechanisms to incorporate the polymerization of the rest of the amino acids in a natural setting I would be interested, but this is insufficient to create polymers necessary for life.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

A few days ago I linked another paper discussing the recent discovery of a new enzyme found in the sea. The poster claims there is not enough time for the formation of biologically useful proteins. Enzymes are proteins...

Yeah I found a rock on my hike today, does that mean the rock was recently formed since I found it today?

Of course not.

In the same logic, discovering a new enzyme does not prove the enzyme was formed recently.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
These things need to be repeated as the poster wants to recycle the already debunked creationists arguments.

Then show me where I made a mistake mathematically. If what you are saying is true then it should not be a problem

If evolution is true then why monkeys haven't evolved to become humans

Strawman, I never said that was an argument against evolution.

and why the E.Coli bacterium hasn't evolved to become another bacterium.

If E. Coli after 75,000 generations shows no signs of becoming anything besides E. Coli, then that is evidence against the plausibility of evolution. 75,000 generations should show a transition into a different bacteria. For example, 75,000 generations was theorized to be approximately 30% of the way for a chimp-like creature to become a homo sapien

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

A few days ago I linked another paper discussing the recent discovery of a new enzyme found in the sea. The poster claims there is not enough time for the formation of biologically useful proteins. Enzymes are proteins...

Yeah I found a rock on my hike today, does that mean the rock was recently formed since I found it today?

Of course not.

In the same logic, discovering a new enzyme does not prove the enzyme was formed recently.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
These things need to be repeated as the poster wants to recycle the already debunked creationists arguments.

Then show me where I made a mistake mathematically. If what you are saying is true then it should not be a problem

If evolution is true then why monkeys haven't evolved to become humans

Strawman, I never said that was an argument against evolution.

and why the E.Coli bacterium hasn't evolved to become another bacterium.

If E. Coli after 75,000 generations shows no signs of becoming anything besides E. Coli, then that is evidence against the plausibility of evolution. 75,000 generations should show a transition into a different bacteria. For example, 75,000 generations was theorized to be approximately 30% of the way for a chimp-like creature to become a homo sapien

-----;--------------+---------------------------------------------------+



You keep recycling debunked arguments.
Only to point out the last bit you keep emphasizing shows precisely why you don't understand evolution.

Do you really think E.Coli will turn into another bacterium?

You can expand this to all other bacteriums or even viruses. Do you really think that influenza virus will somehow change and become SARS-CoV-2?

A good task for you is to sent an email to a chosen university and ask one of the evolutionary biologists to explain to you the process of evolution and why viruses/bacteriums don't change into something else. They will probably suggest you start reading chemistry and biology as you missed a lot in school.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Do you really think E.Coli will turn into another bacterium?

You can expand this to all other bacteriums or even viruses. Do you really think that influenza virus will somehow change and become SARS-CoV-2?

No, I do not believe E. Coli can evolve into another bacterium. Do you not either? You know that evolution insists that all life came from a primordial prokaryote right? Are you admitting evolution cannot happen?

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: cooperton

This paper discusses water mediated peptide bond formation. Read the paper and we'll discuss it.


par.nsf.gov...#:~:text=Amino%20acids%20were%20the%20most%20abundant%20of%20the,the%20condensation%20reaction%20that%20prod uces%20a%20water%20molecule.

Water-Mediated Peptide Bond Formation in the Gas Phase: A Model
Prebiotic Reaction
Ariel G. Gale, Tuguldur T. Odbadrakh, Benjamin T. Ball, and George C. Shields*
Cite This: J. Phys. Chem. A 2020, 124, 4150−4159 Read

I may not respond for a while as my brother is quite ill and may have to travel. But I'll get back to you.

I read into it a little more and it is quite interesting that this scenario allows some degree of polymerization on one of the amino acids. As said before though this is only 1 of the amino acids, and it is the simplest, which may be what allows it to polymerize in the gaseous state without all the clumsy side-chains that the rest of the amino acids have. I will admit this is a considerable step in by-passing the thermodynamic hurdle, but there is still a major problem:



This process doesn't work beyond polymerizing 5 glycine together, as shown above. I guess it gets too heavy at n = 5 polymers and can not longer be atmospheric. This is the major hurdle I still see, while it is also to-be-determined if other amino acid monomers can polymerize in the gaseous state.

a reply to: cooperton

from one of the articles I linked to...

Here, we have unambiguously demonstrated peptide bond formation at the air–water interface using small, water-soluble amino acid esters. Condensation reactions that must eliminate water are thermodynamically unfavorable in aqueous bulk, and yet are ubiquitous and essential to life. In addition, peptide bond formation will not occur between two amino acids in their zwitterionic form, the predominate state in a bulk aqueous environment. Water–air interfaces, characteristic of the surface of oceans, lakes, and atmospheric aerosols, provide an auspicious environment for this condensation chemistry through their provision of a water-restricting environment, alteration of the ionization state of surface species, and ability to concentrate and align monomers. Through in situ spectroscopic measurements, we have identified that the peptide bond forms through the coordination of the amine group of leucine ethyl ester to Cu2+ ions at the surface, inducing an orientational change at the surface observed using IRRAS. Then, peptide bond formation occurs spontaneously at the surface of water, facilitated by the formation of the copper complex at the interface. This work gives insight into oligomeric peptide formation en route to the emergence of more complex biomolecules on early Earth, and reinforces the importance of orientation, alignment, and proximity in the functioning of modern ribosomal peptide bond synthesis.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Do you really think E.Coli will turn into another bacterium?

You can expand this to all other bacteriums or even viruses. Do you really think that influenza virus will somehow change and become SARS-CoV-2?

No, I do not believe E. Coli can evolve into another bacterium. Do you not either? You know that evolution insists that all life came from a primordial prokaryote right? Are you admitting evolution cannot happen?

Complete confusion

Virus/bacteria evolution are well known processes that don't involve their transformation to other viruses and bacteriums.

You seriously need to open a biology and chemistry book.

www.newscientist.com...

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells, eukaryotic cells aggregate and cooperate to make everything from seaweed to sequoias, aardvarks to zebras. All complex multicellular life forms – that is to say, pretty much every living thing you can see around you, and more besides – are eukaryotes.

All eukaryotes evolved from the same ancestor. Without that one-off event, life would still be stuck in its microbial rut. Bacteria and archaea cells just don’t have what it takes to evolve into more complex forms.

I have linked this earlier in the thread but you are still going about your refuted arguments. Just read the opening paragraph but let me help you:

And while bacteria never form anything more complex than chains or colonies of identical cells....

It's very clear and anyone can read it.



Linked this one too earlier in the thread

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

Bacterial species can adapt to significant changes in their environment by mutation followed by selection, a phenomenon known as “adaptive evolution.”

Keywords: Adaptive evolution




And your favourite (but debunked argument that E.Coli and other bacteriums don't evolve)

Virus evolution of E.Coli

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

The genetic bases of adaptation are being investigated in 12 populations of Escherichia coli, founded from a common ancestor and serially propagated for 20,000 generations, during which time they achieved substantial fitness gains. Each day, populations alternated between active growth and nutrient exhaustion

I haven't seen anyone else keep pushing the same refuted arguments but I have several links to post of you wish although we don't need them. All we need is for people to start opening some books and read about the basic scientific principles instead of trying to argue there is some divine wisdom and knowledge in a bronze age ideology.