Biomimicry - Intelligence In Design

reply to post by Astyanax

And your description of the Miller-Urey experiment is highly biased; the assembled ingredients and electric charges simply reproduce the conditions thought to be found on the primeval Earth. In fact, the formula has been changed plenty of times and the amino acids still appear.

You keep citing the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment.

I found some articles you may find interesting.

Whether the mixture of gases used in the Miller–Urey experiment truly reflects the atmospheric content of early Earth is a controversial topic

Reducing Atmosphere

So the experiment may not have have been the actual conditions of early earth?

No one has synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics.

Miller experiments and models derived provide no explanation of the steps that ultimately lead to living cells.

Article

no-one has yet followed Miller's work by showing how these chemicals are assembled into living cells.

Link

No life yet.

Urey believed that life was common in the universe, and that these building blocks must have spontaneously come into being on the early Earth. He and Miller set out to demonstrate how this could have happened. They filled a flask with methane, hydrogen, ammonia, and steam, which was thought to replicate the early atmosphere, and passed 60,000-volt electric charges through it to simulate lightning. Miller sat by the crackling apparatus for a week, then analyzed the chemicals in the water. They were full of amino acids. Most scientists now believe that the early atmosphere had a different composition than the one tested by Miller and Urey, and that organic molecules originated by other mechanisms. Yet the experiment galvanized the scientific comm-unity to think about how life may have begun.

Link

That article makes it sound like Miller and Urey should have had there own cooking show.







Stanley Miller later teamed up with biochemist Leslie Orgel, and they came up with the RNA World Hypothesis



This is where it really gets interesting!



Leslie Orgel then teamed up with Nobel Prize winner, the co discoverer of DNA molecule, Francis Crick.

The late Nobel prize winner Professor Francis Crick, OM FRS, along with British chemist Leslie Orgel proposed the theory of directed panspermia in 1973. A co-discoverer of the double helical structure of the DNA molecule, Crick found it impossible that the complexity of DNA could have evolved naturally.

Link

Francis Crick the discoverer of DNA, and expert on abiogenesis, came to the conclusion that it was impossible that DNA evolved naturally.

Crick and Orgel came up with the Directed Panspermia Hypothesis, they theorized that life on earth was "seeded" by extraterrestrials.


No intelligence needed, huh?

Originally posted by dusty1

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, which held that this process was a commonplace and everyday occurrence, as distinguished from univocal generation, or reproduction from parent(s). The theory was synthesized by Aristotle,[1] who compiled and expanded the work of prior natural philosophers and the various ancient explanations of the appearance of organisms; it held sway for two millennia. It is generally accepted to have been ultimately disproven in the 19th century by the experiments of Louis Pasteur, expanding upon the experiments of other scientists before him (such as Francesco Redi who had performed similar experiments in the 17th century). Ultimately, it was succeeded by germ theory and cell theory.

Are you aware of how deceitful that is? Either you're a liar, or you've been cleverly duped by one.
(I don't know how to word that to not sound offensive.)

The article I posted was from Wikipedia.

Abiogenesis

Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis sound eerily similar, from the definition from your link at RationalWiki.

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter

RationalWiki

reply to post by dusty1

You keep citing the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment.

I never cited it at all. You did.

You know, every time I give your mala fides the benefit of the doubt, you come back with yet another untruth. Why do you find it so hard to be honest?

Anyway,

Some evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition than the gas used in the Miller–Urey experiment. There is abundant evidence of major volcanic eruptions 4 billion years ago, which would have released carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Experiments using these gases in addition to the ones in the original Miller–Urey experiment have produced more diverse molecules. Source

More information

Anyway, let’s call it a day, shall we? We were discussing the problem of evil as it relates to the natural world, and you have come up with nothing worth discussing on the subject. I am now more interested to see whether and how the person with the ball of spaghetti in his or her avatar will respond; I scent a potentially more interesting conversation there than the one you and I are having. Besides, you’re not truthful enough to be nice to talk to.

Originally posted by dusty1
The article I posted was from Wikipedia.

Abiogenesis

Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis sound eerily similar, from the definition from your link at RationalWiki.

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter

RationalWiki

You're so deceitful. I mean, seriously.

You Labeled your link Abiogenesis, but intentionally linked to Spontaneous Generation, to make them seem like the same thing.

How about you read your own source material; It makes the distinction itself.

Spontaneous generation or Equivocal generation is an obsolete principle regarding the origin of life from inanimate matter, ... For the modern hypothesis of the origin of life, see Abiogenesis.
...
The disproof of ongoing spontaneous generation is no longer controversial, now that the life cycles of various life forms have been well documented. However, the question of abiogenesis, how living things originally arose from non-living material, remains relevant today.

Both aim for explaining the emergence of life. So of course, they are slightly similar sounded when you simplify it. However, they are very different, and you seem to be intentionally mixing them together as a lie so that the fact that one's disproven would somehow disprove the other.

Try reading the actual Wikipedia Page about it. To get started. Because you either don't know what you're talking about, or you're so insecure about your position you feel the need use intellectual dishonesty. Either way, you're not in a position to try to debate your position. You're only pushing your stance further into the mud.

Abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation. Period.

When you actually know what your talking about, and can present your point honestly; If somehow you can make it sound convincing after that, I'll be interested. But, how you're going about now, I'm really not.

~
P.S. I don't know how to call out lies without sounding rude. It's rude to assert that someone's lying, but obviously wouldn't work to just pretend what they're saying's true. So, I apologize if I came off dis-tactful.

reply to post by Astyanax


Astyanax you are a gem.

You brought up the topic to begin with.

I never cited it at all. You did.

Well caught. Pasteur worked in the middle of the nineteenth century. In his time, spontaneous generation meant the belief that rotten meat spontaneously generates maggots and wet straw spontaneously generates mice. He wasn’t thinking about the spontaneous generation of replicating molecules from organic elements naturally present. We already know that amino acids and RNA bases are generated spontaneously; and there is no law in Heaven or Earth that forbids the evolution of life from inanimate matter.

You are somewhat behind the times. Amino acids have been found in cosmic dust clouds millions of light-years from Earth. RNA bases spontaneously generate without needing to be shocked by anything. Even RNA chains have been found to form spontaneously. And your description of the Miller-Urey experiment is highly biased; the assembled ingredients and electric charges simply reproduce the conditions thought to be found on the primeval Earth. In fact, the formula has been changed plenty of times and the amino acids still appear.

So you have nothing to say about Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, and his belief of Directed Panspermia?

Anyway, let’s call it a day, shall we? We were discussing the problem of evil as it relates to the natural world, and you have come up with nothing worth discussing on the subject

Yes, lets get back to the main topic of this thread.

Biomimicry!!

reply to post by xxsomexpersonxx

You're so deceitful. I mean, seriously. You Labeled your link Abiogenesis, but intentionally linked to Spontaneous Generation, to make them seem like the same thing.

Please read my posts again.

In the first post that you responded to, the whole context was Astyanax assertion, that RNA formed spontaneously.

The article really says,

approaches the concept of spontaneous generation of (pre)genetic information.

Approaches the concept? That was his "proof"? How can the experiment approach an obsolete theory?

Even RNA chains have been found to form spontaneously

My position is that life can only come from existing life.

I quoted the Wikipedia article on Spontaneous Generation


But I did not provide a link. Google Spontaneous Generation and the Wikipedia article is the first link.

The whole discussion topic was SPONTANEOUS GENERATION.


I was accused of lying?


I then replied by stating the source for the article.



Then I made a mistake linking Abiogenesis (by the way Wikipedia links both Spontaneous Generation and Abiogenesis together) I had both pages on my screen. Oops.

I then quoted your RationalWiki article.

Both aim for explaining the emergence of life. So of course, they are slightly similar sounded when you simplify it.

Yes, they are both similar sounding!


I will quote another source.

Merriam-Webster

Definition of ABIOGENESIS : the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter—called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis —abi·og·e·nist or abio·gen·e·sist noun

Link

spontaneous generation noun Definition of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION : abiogenesis

Link

Is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary lying???

The truth is that you and Astyanax as well as many in the scientific community are being intellectually dishonest with yourselves.



I would like to get back to discussing the intelligence found in nature.

Originally posted by dusty1

I will quote another source.

Merriam-Webster

Definition of ABIOGENESIS : the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter—called also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis —abi·og·e·nist or abio·gen·e·sist noun

Link

spontaneous generation noun Definition of SPONTANEOUS GENERATION : abiogenesis

Link

Is the Merriam-Webster Dictionary lying???

The truth is that you and Astyanax as well as many in the scientific community are being intellectually dishonest with yourselves.

While it's very interesting that they defined them as synonyms. I would indeed have to say they are being inaccurate. The 'Spontaneous Generation' disproven is the 17th century is not the same as modern(not disproven, quite supported) Abiogenesis. And the difference in names denotes which ones which. Your just playing Semantics to try to falsify the our Modern Understanding of it, but applying the same name to an old false understanding.

If you actually read the Wikipedia page you keep citing, it's right there. They are not the same.

~
To get back on topic, I have been trying to find some videos that I'd consider within the same realm of Biomimicry, but can't find them. I will share if I do though.

reply to post by dusty1

Originally posted by Astyanax
He wasn’t thinking about the spontaneous generation of replicating molecules from organic elements naturally present. We already know that amino acids and RNA bases are generated spontaneously; and there is no law in Heaven or Earth that forbids the evolution of life from inanimate matter.

Which of these is supposed to refer to Miller-Urey? The spontaneous generation of amino acids?

This has occurred under a wide variety of different conditions in the lab, not just in those ancient Miller-Urey experiments you described so evocatively. Furthermore, we have discovered the spectroscopic signatures of amino-acid-like organic molecules in interstellar dust clouds.

So you have nothing to say about Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, and his belief of Directed Panspermia?

Nothing whatsoever. I don’t deal in unfalsifiable hypthoses.

Oh, and:

The whole context was Astyanax assertion, that RNA formed spontaneously.

Another bit of truth-twisting. What I said was that RNA bases had formed spontaneously, not actual RNA.

reply to post by Astyanax



Speaking of truth twisting.

You stated:

You are somewhat behind the times. Amino acids have been found in cosmic dust clouds millions of light-years from Earth.

Your article states:

Finding amino acids in interstellar space is a Holy Grail for astrobiologists, as this would raise the possibility of life emerging on other planets after being seeded with the molecules.

This seems to reference Francis Crick and his idea of Directed Panspermia.
But you don't want to discuss that.

Your article goes on to say

While they failed to find evidence for amino acids,

Link to Astyanax Article

You claimed that amino acids were found.

The article you cited specifically said that they failed to find evidence for amino acids.

reply to post by dusty1


Ammino acids in space: link

All you had to do is a 2min google search to find out how wrong you are

reply to post by MrXYZ

Thanks, MrXYZ.

In fact, dusty1 is right – not because I was trying to deceive anyone, but because my memory was at fault. I knew amino acids had been found in space, and I knew esters and other complex organic molecules had been found in dust clouds. I conflated those two pieces of knowledge without realizing it. If dusty1 wants to call me a liar for this, that’s fine by me. At least I’m not trying to make human sacrifice seem morally equivalent to self-sacrifice. I don’t think that one can be explained as mere forgetfulness.

The fact remains, as you have shown – and I was trying to point out – that a 1953 experiment was not the only environment in which amino acids have formed spontaneously. There have been other experiments as well as extraterrestrial discoveries. More fundamentally, his implied accusation – that scientists knowingly create environmental conditions in which amino acids evolve, then pretend that these conditions existed on primeval Earth – is proved false by the fact that, as new understanding of the early Earth emerges, scientists have altered the experimental conditions to replicate them – and ended up with far more organic molecules than Miller ever did.

Though, frankly, I don’t see what the problem is for creationists. All they have to say is ‘Well, God created those amino acids too! God created everything!’ and there’s an end to the argument. But somehow that is never enough.

I believe the truth is that creationism is not inspired so much by affronted faith as by a fear of the vast, empty, indifferent expanses of time and space and morality that science has revealed to us. The God of creationism is a God of the Gaps par excellence – not the gaps that exist in human knowledge, but the yawning vacuum that is, give or take a few derisory specks and flashes of matter and energy, the universe. Their God is invented to fill the universe with sense and meaning.

We have travelled rather far from biomimicry, so let us return to it. The OP is claiming, as far as I can make it out (his argument is not very clear) that the existence of biomimicry in nature suggests that someone designed the world.

I would argue the opposite. The creator designed dangerous predators and animals that are poisonous to eat, then went ahead and designed a whole lot of animals that looked like the dangerous, poisonous ones? What conceivable purpose would that serve? Had the creator decreed that biomimetic creatures must not be eaten? What about the non-mimics? Are they fair game for everyone? Even the porcupine with its quills and the armadillo with its scales? Why are there no biomimetic porcupines?

The existence of biomimicry in nature proves nothing except that evolution is unbelievably versatile. But then, we knew that already.

reply to post by Astyanax


I think this part is for the OP:

We have travelled rather far from biomimicry, so let us return to it. The OP is claiming, as far as I can make it out (his argument is not very clear) that the existence of biomimicry in nature suggests that someone designed the world.

I would argue the opposite. The creator designed dangerous predators and animals that are poisonous to eat, then went ahead and designed a whole lot of animals that looked like the dangerous, poisonous ones? What conceivable purpose would that serve? Had the creator decreed that biomimetic creatures must not be eaten? What about the non-mimics? Are they fair game for everyone? Even the porcupine with its quills and the armadillo with its scales? Why are there no biomimetic porcupines?

The existence of biomimicry in nature proves nothing except that evolution is unbelievably versatile. But then, we knew that already.

Now why you want to eat poisonous animals beats me - but last time I check poisons on animals are defense mechanisms while we are in this present imperfect world - but in the future, a promise was made by the Creator himself that none of these will "do any harm" anymore - an exquisite delight of peace will exist between animals and animals, between animals and man and between man.

Of course none of this makes sense to you because you're view is limited to the present imperfect world.

Besides as pointed out already - there are insects and animals that we consider poisonous, dangerous and even useless life forms such as the intestinal worms (a pest) - yet when studied carefully, they do indeed present some kind of benefit/s in one way or another. Many of these what we call "pest" play a BIG and VITAL role in the ecological balance - eradicate one type of "pest" - it will have a drastic effect on the other - and the domino effect becomes disastrous.

Consider this one report out of hundreds:

“It is obvious, therefore, that without the beneficial services of numerous forest insects our forests would never have attained to their present magnificence, their productivity would be far less than it now is, lumber would be inferior, they would be less suitable as homes for valuable wildlife, and their esthetic and recreational values would be far less than they now are. They would, moreover, be filled with a tangled maze of dead branches and small trees that would constitute a fire hazard far greater than any now known, or what is more probable, they would be swept by destructive fires of such frequency as never to attain the status of forest maturity as we now know it.” -- Carl D. Duncan, Professor of Entomology and Botany, San Jose State College

Also many of these insects we call "pest" become such because of man's greed and the wanton disregard and mismanagement of God's creations. Due to unsanitary living conditions - many rats and insects become infectious and carrier of diseases.

So in reality - it was MAN who upset the BALANCE that once exist in nature - happily the Creator himself will bring that condition back.

Sadly - since you wholeheartedly believe in evolution - then it's survival of the fittest to you.

But I hope not.

To quote Einstein's "Universal Scale" as noted by science writer Lewis Thomas in an essay:

''The greatest single achievement of science in this most scientifically productive of centuries is the discovery that we are profoundly ignorant; we know very little about nature and we understand even less.''

www.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by Astyanax

 

Besides as pointed out already - there are insects and animals that we consider poisonous, dangerous and even useless life forms such as the intestinal worms (a pest) - yet when studied carefully, they do indeed present some kind of benefit/s in one way or another. Many of these what we call "pest" play a BIG and VITAL role in the ecological balance - eradicate one type of "pest" - it will have a drastic effect on the other - and the domino effect becomes disastrous.

(I felt this bit sums up the whole post.)

While you interpret that as a sign of creation, I don't see how it could be seen as such.

A good creator could create a perfect balance without the need for any pests. Insects, Parasites, bad bacterium's, viruses(HIV). Do you really think an all knowing, all powerful god would have to integrate all these into a environment, so feebly scaled together that removing any causes a disastrous effect?

Hell, the ecological balance even pushes further away from the idea of creation. While billions of years tuning to an environment, and being part of the environment that others tune too, would explain why the balance doesn't have too much room for leeway, but from a creation standpoint, that'd be a sign of incompetence on the creators part. A creator(especially one who could see into the future) would be wise enough to put into effect enough counterbalances so that his ecosystem wouldn't be easily destroyed, And there are some natural counterbalances, in some situations, but there's also the others where there aren't.

reply to post by edmc^2

Now why you want to eat poisonous animals beats me - but last time I check poisons on animals are defense mechanisms while we are in this present imperfect world - but in the future, a promise was made by the Creator himself that none of these will "do any harm" anymore - an exquisite delight of peace will exist between animals and animals, between animals and man and between man.

Of course none of this makes sense to you because you're view is limited to the present imperfect world.

No, it doesn't make sense because:

A) There's zero indication poisonous animals are losing their poison.
B) If they did in fact lose that ability, they'd be easy pray and would get KILLED by their natural predators...you know, animals have to eat. And calling that "peace" is crazy.
C) You simply don't understand how food chains work apparently...

Besides as pointed out already - there are insects and animals that we consider poisonous, dangerous and even useless life forms such as the intestinal worms (a pest) - yet when studied carefully, they do indeed present some kind of benefit/s in one way or another. Many of these what we call "pest" play a BIG and VITAL role in the ecological balance - eradicate one type of "pest" - it will have a drastic effect on the other - and the domino effect becomes disastrous.

...all supported by the theory of evolution

Also many of these insects we call "pest" become such because of man's greed and the wanton disregard and mismanagement of God's creations. Due to unsanitary living conditions - many rats and insects become infectious and carrier of diseases.

You once again fail to present objective evidence for a creator. I agree that humans imbalance the earth, as is evident in global warming. By 2100, it will be around 6 degrees warmer than today thanks to us fools, and yeah, we'll suffer because of it...but all of that future suffering can be perfectly explained through natural forces and science. No magic required

''The greatest single achievement of science in this most scientifically productive of centuries is the discovery that we are profoundly ignorant; we know very little about nature and we understand even less.''

Which means that science accepts that we don't have all the answers. Religious folk on the other hand completely ignore Einstein's quote and fill gaps in knowledge with magic...hell, they even ignore objective findings if they go against their belief. Ignorance at its best

reply to post by MrXYZ

A) There's zero indication poisonous animals are losing their poison. B) If they did in fact lose that ability, they'd be easy pray and would get KILLED by their natural predators...you know, animals have to eat. And calling that "peace" is crazy. C) You simply don't understand how food chains work apparently...

let me repeat what said:

...while we are in this present imperfect world - but in the future, a promise was made by the Creator himself that none of these will "do any harm" anymore - - an exquisite delight of peace will exist between animals and animals, between animals and man and between man.

The key words are "promised" and "future".

as for:

You once again fail to present objective evidence for a creator.

But since you don't believe - why does it matter to you?

Who deserves the CREDIT in the Design in Nature?

reply to post by edmc^2


Wouldn't the answer to that question be NATURE? It would be a violation of nature for a "creator" to interfere with the process. Whether or not a "creator" started the ball rolling doesn't really matter. It is simply a case of nature observing nature and finding ways to survive a harsh world.

reply to post by edmc^2

...while we are in this present imperfect world - but in the future, a promise was made by the Creator himself that none of these will "do any harm" anymore - - an exquisite delight of peace will exist between animals and animals, between animals and man and between man.

The key words are "promised" and "future".

So sharks won't kill their prey anymore and eat what exactly? Marshmallows?

And the basis of your claim is because "it has been promised"? Really? How about using logic and rationality for once?

Nothing you have posted would support this claim, even worse, objective evidence clearly points out what nonsense this claim is!

But since you don't believe - why does it matter to you?

I care because those unfounded claims you make are dumbing down the people!! If people like you, who don't care about logic/rationality, ruled the world...we'd still live in caves and believe the earth is falt...or that snakes can really talk, or that a global flood really happened, or that humans just popped up on earth in their current form without evolution. And of course if you believe in the that "promise" you mentioned, you also have to believe people can survive inside whales...which is CRAZY!!

Originally posted by isyeye

Who deserves the CREDIT in the Design in Nature?

reply to post by edmc^2

 

Wouldn't the answer to that question be NATURE? It would be a violation of nature for a "creator" to interfere with the process. Whether or not a "creator" started the ball rolling doesn't really matter. It is simply a case of nature observing nature and finding ways to survive a harsh world.

Let's put it this way:

If a dear friend of yours gave you a beutiful fully furnished house - who willl you thank?

Who deserved the credit - the house or your dear friend?

Same thing with Nature or for that matter the Planet Earth - right now it's hurtling in space at speeds of 108000 kilometers (67000 miles) an hour. Yet we're safe inside this "spaceship".

It has marvelous protective layers to protect us from harmful rays and meteors.

It's fully furnished not only to support life but to enjoy life.

Sadly - man - who should be taking care of it is not and sad part - instead thanking the creator - blamed him for all the badness and the misused of many if not all of its resources.

Why kill a shark just for its fin or a rhino for its horn, etc?

It's like this boy after all the things that his loving parents done for him told them that he didn't asked to be born - so it's the parents fault why his life is so miserable.

happily there are people who are using nature to better our present life - Bio-mimicry.

So back to my Q:

Who deserves the CREDIT in the Design in Nature?

Who put the wisdom on termites - to be copied - so that we can have air-conditioning system in our houses?

reply to post by edmc^2

If a dear friend of yours gave you a beutiful fully furnished house - who willl you thank?

Who deserved the credit - the house or your dear friend?

Convenient how you're forgetting that you have PROOF that your friend gave you that house...proof you DON'T have when it comes to how lifeforms and the earth came to be.

So your metaphor is a pretty bad one

If a dear friend of yours gave you a beutiful fully furnished house - who willl you thank?

Isn't the house and the furnishings derived from the things that nature created?

I would thank my friend....as well as nature then.

Just because nature is intelligent doesn't mean that it was designed to be that way. There are many things in nature that are not intelligent what so ever. Does a bird with flightless wings sound intelligent? (although there are reasons behind it).