Thursday, 4 February 2010

Theism Predicts (Part IV)


Last time, our theist tried to dab his toe into the waters of evolution, and didn't do such a good job. This time around, we find that the theist is still having trouble with reality. For instance:
9. Materialism predicted a extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. Theism predicted only God created life on earth – The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever. (M. Behe; JC Sanford)

The first sentence is not even close to being true. No one is claiming that most mutations are beneficial. Most mutations are either deleterious or neutral, with some being advantageous. Mutations, however, are not "overwhelmingly detrimental." This is incorrect. And, there are not serious questions as to "whether there are any truly beneficial mutations whatsoever." The only ones making this claim are unserious creationists like Behe and Sanford who are roundly ignored, debunked, and/or chided for their unscrupulous inattention to the evidence.

What evidence? Try Lenski's work, genetic algorithms, or the many observed instance of speciation. How can they claim credibility when they deny the obvious evidence that has been produced?
10. Materialism predicted a very simple first life form which accidentally came from “a warm little pond”. Theism predicted God created life – The simplest life ever found on Earth is far more complex than any machine man has made through concerted effort. (Michael Denton PhD)

Again, the theist puts words into the "materialist's" mouth. The first life was very simple, but how it came about is probably not in "a warm little pond." We don't know exactly how life arose or in what conditions, but we do know that it is possible in quite a few conditions.

Our theist, of course, jumps to the claim that life is complex, but this doesn't at all show that the first lifeform was not simple. Of course, to go from simple to complex we need a mechanism that accomplishes the task. Luckily enough for us, we have evolution, which is more than adequate to the job and has been demonstrated to have the ability to go from simple to complex (see above and/or pick up any textbook).

Finally, that something may be more complex than anything man has made doesn't necessarily imply that it was made in turn. We could make the counter argument that we see complexity in nature that we can not hope to match, so what makes the theist think that anything could create that complexity? Both are non-starter arguments and the fact that the theist must rely on such arguments indicates that the theist is not operating from a position of strength.
11. Materialism predicted it took a very long time for life to develop on earth. Theism predicted life to appear abruptly on earth after water appeared on earth (Genesis 1:10-11) – We find evidence for complex photo-synthetic life in the oldest sedimentary rocks ever found on earth

If materialism did predict that it took a very long time for life to appear on Earth, well that is correct. The Earth formed about 4.5 billion years ago (bya). The oldest rocks we've found are from about 4 bya. The oldest life we've found is from about 3.5 bya. IOW, life formed about 1 billion years after the formation of the Earth. Apparently that's abrupt to the theist?

Of course, that's up for some debate, and I give the theist some credit here as some recent finds may indicate older life, maybe from as early as 3.8 bya. Still, this does not support the theist's position, especially when the reference to Genesis is made. Genesis goes right out the window when discussing billions of years. Genesis refers to days and abrupt changes that simply did not happen. Genesis is disproven. Sorry Mr. Theist, but as soon as you brought Genesis into the discussion, you lost all credibility. Still, the next installment will deal with the last of the supposed predictions.


Other posts in this series...

51 comments:

Celestial teapot said...

GCT,
"We don't know exactly how life arose or in what conditions, but we do know that it is possible in quite a few conditions."

How do we know this when no one has ever observed life arising under ANY condition?

Tyler said...

One doesn't need to observe life arising in quite a few conditions to know that it is possible for life to exist in quite a few conditions, since, you know, life exists in quite a few conditions, observably, and must have arisen (or evolved to survive, which is wordy way of saying arose) under quite a few conditions, logically.

Nonetheless, the building blocks of life indeed have been observed "arising."

John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.

I'm going to go out on a long limb and suggest even you are capable of googling for further information.

Celestial Teapot said...

“One doesn't need to observe life arising in quite a few conditions to know that it is possible for life to exist in quite a few conditions, since, you know, life exists in quite a few conditions, observably, and must have arisen (or evolved to survive, which is wordy way of saying arose) under quite a few conditions, logically."

Is this what you meant GCT?

I don’t think it logically follows that life arose under many different conditions just because it presently exists in many different conditions. No one has a clue how life arose on earth and we don’t have any other examples of life elsewhere to suggest that it ever happened more than once. If life arose on earth through a sequence of chemical processes, we have no idea as to the conditions required for those processes. We can speculate that the conditions were something like a thermal vent at the ocean floor, but since we don’t really know whether life arose there or not we can’t really say anything about the conditions required. It just isn’t known, so it’s speculative to say that life could arise under quite a few conditions.

"Nonetheless, the building blocks of life indeed have been observed "arising."

So life is the same as the building blocks of life? I would disagree, as would most biologists.

“John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.

I'm going to go out on a long limb and suggest even you are capable of googling for further information.”

Even me? I’m honored. I did Google it and found the news article. I had not heard about ribonucleotides being generated in this type of experiment before, only ribosides. Pretty cool, I must admit. However, I would not say that we now know a set of conditions under which life can arise, or that the there are quite a few conditions that would allow it to occur.

Tyler said...

Teapot: Is this what you meant GCT?

I'm not speaking for GCT.

Teapot: I don’t think it logically follows that life arose under many different conditions just because it presently exists in many different conditions.

Life "arose" under many different conditions, whether you want to believe it was the result of magic or natural processes.

Oh, and don't think the fact that, right off the bat, you conflated origins and evolution has gone unnoticed, you disingenuous twit.

Teapot: No one has a clue how life arose on earth...

Uh, yeah, there are clues as to how life arose on earth, hence the aforementioned experiment (and others not mentioned).

Teapot: If life arose on earth through a sequence of chemical processes, we have no idea as to the conditions required for those processes.

Yes, "we" do.

Teapot: ... we can’t really say anything about the conditions required.

Yes, "we" can.

Teapot: It just isn’t known...

Thank god for you creatards, eh? If it weren't for the shred of empirical ignorance that exists regarding the conditions of the earth when life arose, you'd have absolutely nothing to fall back on. What a pathetic little corner you've backed your imaginary friend into...


Teapot: So life is the same as the building blocks of life?

That's not what I said, dipshit.

Teapot: However, I would not say that we now know a set of conditions under which life can arise, or that the there are quite a few conditions that would allow it to occur.

Unfortunately for you, reality doesn't give a shit what you're willing to say.

ethinethin said...

It just isn’t known, so it’s speculative to say that life could arise under quite a few conditions.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't speculate and test based on those speculations.

How would you react if scientists did manage to create a protocell in the lab? Let me take a guess. You'd say:

"Well, of course life can be created in a lab. That doesn't mean that is how life formed on earth. It's a leap of faith to say that just because life can be created chemically that life was created chemically. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!"

Close enough?

Celestial Teapot said...

Tyler,
If you keep this up you're going to start hurting my feelings.

Are you really going to run with this idea that life arose under many different conditions... just because life exists under many different conditions? So all the different conditions under which life exists were separate starting points to life? It happened in hot springs, it happened in puddles rich with prebiotic organic molecules, ...it happened all over the place, with all kinds of conditions. We can infer many origins to life simply because life exists under many different conditions.

I like it. It's simple. Elegant. Go with it guy. I think you're onto something here.

Let me know when it hits Nature.

Celestial Teapot said...

"That doesn't mean we shouldn't speculate and test based on those speculations."

I agree. The more experiments done the better. I'm just saying that speculation shouldn't be confused with fact. It's not a fact that life arose under many different conditions. It's speculation that is presented as if it were a fact.

Regarding the protocell, yeah, you're probably right. I would not view that as supporting evidence for abiogenesis. If I enucleate a cell and then inject a nucleus back into it, is that support for abiogenesis? I took a cell apart and then reconstituted it from the parts. If I take it apart further and can still reconstitute it, have I now provided evidence for abiogenesis? I don't think so.

Tyler said...

Teapot: Tyler,
If you keep this up you're going to start hurting my feelings.


I highly doubt I can hurt your feelings any worse than you do, what with your constant mental self flagellation and all.

Teapot: Are you really going to run with this idea that life arose under many different conditions... just because life exists under many different conditions?

Are you really going to run with the idea that I'm running somewhere with that idea?

Teapot: So all the different conditions under which life exists were separate starting points to life?

Not all of them, no. Duh.

Teapot: We can infer many origins to life simply because life exists under many different conditions.

No, "we" can infer many different origins of many different forms of life because life exists under many different conditions. Mammalian life didn't arise in thermal vent conditions on the ocean floor, dipshit.

Oh, I see... you're still conflating origins and evolution.

Sure, I'll bite: Can you give a reason or list of reasons why it should not (or even can not) be inferred that life can arise under many different conditions?

Teapot: Let me know when it hits Nature.

Let me know when you catch up to the 19th century.

Tyler said...

Teapot: I'm just saying that speculation shouldn't be confused with fact.

There's some irony for ya.

Teapot: It's not a fact that life arose under many different conditions.

:snort:

Yes, it is.

Oh, that's right. You're still conflating origins and evolution.

Dipshit.

Celestial Teapot said...

Tyler,
Ever hear of Tourette's Syndrome? You may want to check this out.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/tourette/detail_tourette.htm

Seriously.

Tyler said...

Oh, I see. Anyone who gives you a huge dose of your own medicine has a disorder of some sort.

Hypocritical dipshit.

By the way,

Sure, I'll bite: Can you give a reason or list of reasons why it should not (or even can not) be inferred that life can arise under many different conditions?

Celestial Teapot said...

Tyler,

"Sure, I'll bite: Can you give a reason or list of reasons why it should not (or even can not) be inferred that life can arise under many different conditions?"

Well, since you have taken de bate, let's approach this from the standpoint of the master de bater. What Would GCT Do (WWGCTD)?

GCT would say "You made the positive assertion here, now back it up."

You made the positive assertion that there are many conditions under which life could arise. Why don't you name one condition under which life can arise, and then back it up with some evidence?

Try doing this without using the word "dipshit." If you find yourself struggling, you may want to look at the Tourettes Syndrome website again.

Tyler said...

Teapot: Well, since you have taken de bate...

Oh aren't you clever...

Teapot: You made the positive assertion that there are many conditions under which life could arise. Why don't you name one condition under which life can arise, and then back it up with some evidence?

I already did, dipshit.

Teapot: Try doing this without using the word "dipshit."

Ooops. Too late.

Now, for the third time, how about you back up your positive assertion...

Teapot: ... we can’t really say anything about the conditions required.

Sure, I'll bite: Can you give a reason or list of reasons why it should not (or even can not) be inferred that life can arise under many different conditions?

Celestial Teapot said...

Tyler,

"I already did, dipshit."

Don't give up trying. There are ways to control your dopamine and serotonin levels.

I'm guessing you're referring to this:

John Sutherland and his colleagues from the University of Manchester, UK, created a ribonucleotide, a building block of RNA, from simple chemicals under conditions that might have existed on the early Earth.

So life on earth arose under the conditions that were used in this experiment? You're pretty sure about that, are you? What makes you so sure?

What if someone finds conditions to produce a phospholipid using completely different conditions? Do those conditions now become the new set of conditions under which life arose?

WWGCTD?

GCT would say "You are conflating life with nucleotides (again)."

Tyler said...

Teapot: I'm guessing you're referring to this...

Guess again, dipshit.

Ooops... I did it again.

By the way, for the fourth time...

Teapot: ... we can’t really say anything about the conditions required.

Sure, I'll bite: Can you give a reason or list of reasons why it should not (or even can not) be inferred that life can arise under many different conditions?

Celestial Teapot said...

Tyler,

"Guess again, dipshit."

Guess I missed it.

We seem to have arrived at the expected place. I think it might be best to hang it up for now.

Always a pleasure, Tyler.

Tyler said...

Run Forrest, run!!

Tigerboy said...

while you two make nice . . . .

For the vast majority of the history of the Earth, and, in fact, continuing through today (although now much less so than in the past), the planet has, with GREAT regularity, been bombarded by meteorites and asteroids.

The young solar system was absolutely littered with space rocks. In fact, space rocks are the very stuff out of which the terrestrial planets coalesced.

For the entire history of the planet, we have been bombarded by rocks from space. Tons and tons of rocks raining down from space.

It has been CLEARLY PROVED that some meteorites carry amino acids. Amino acids form proteins.

To claim that we "haven't a clue" about where life came from is disingenuous and indicative of a religious agenda.

To claim that science has no other explanation for life other than that maybe life sprang spontaneously from "a warm pool" is a GROSS misrepresentation.

The bigger question is where did the POOL come from? (Don't worry . . . I'm not gonna say "Jesus.")

How our planet came to have so much WATER is the subject of some controversy.

But given that we DO have a planet covered by liquid water, and we DO have a constant bombardment of meteorites with amino acids, that those amino acid building blocks would eventually form life was probably unavoidable.

Life arising in such circumstances is probably extremely common.

Given the number of observable stars, there are probably more life-bearing planets in the universe than there are grains of sand on all the beaches on Earth.

Celestial Teapot said...

Tigerboy,
"Life arising in such circumstances is probably extremely common."

I would agree with this statement if there was strong evidence for either of two things.

1. Life is actually discovered somewhere else in the universe. Right now n=1. If n=2, that is at least getting towards "common."


2. The steps required to produce life de novo are elucidated in the laboratory. That is another variety of n=2. Tyler would argue that that has already been done. I disagree.

ethinethin said...

Regarding the protocell, yeah, you're probably right. I would not view that as supporting evidence for abiogenesis. If I enucleate a cell and then inject a nucleus back into it, is that support for abiogenesis? I took a cell apart and then reconstituted it from the parts. If I take it apart further and can still reconstitute it, have I now provided evidence for abiogenesis? I don't think so.

Perhaps I should make my question a bit clearer. If scientists synthesized a cell entirely through chemical means, would you view that as evidence that life could arise entirely through chemical means?

Tyler said...

Teapot: Tyler would argue that that has already been done. I disagree.

Again, reality doesn't care if you disagree with it, dipshit.

Celestial Teapot said...

Ethinethin,
"If scientists synthesized a cell entirely through chemical means, would you view that as evidence that life could arise entirely through chemical means?"

Are you asking this with reference to abiogenesis?

If synthesis occurs under conditions that could reasonably have been expected to have occured on a prebiotic earth, yes.

If scientists synthesize all the individual cellular components and then assemble them into a cell, no. In that case the cell didn't "arise" by any process that one could say models abiogenesis.

In the latter case, it would be shown that life can be synthesized chemically, but not that life could arise through chemical processes likely to occur on a prebiotic earth.

Tyler said...

Teapot: If synthesis occurs under conditions that could reasonably have been expected to have occured on a prebiotic earth, yes.

"Reasonably expected" according to what standard, exactly?

Or is that a rhetorical question...

GCT said...

CT,
Stop trying to speak for me.

Second, this whole argument is over something rather innocuous that you turned into something much more controversial with your straw man when you said, "I don’t think it logically follows that life arose under many different conditions just because it presently exists in many different conditions."

In general, your appeals to a false dichotomy and god of the gaps (un)reasoning are once again, duly noted.

a said...

"Again, the theist puts words into the "materialist's" mouth. The first life was very simple, but how it came about is probably not in "a warm little pond." We don't know exactly how life arose or in what conditions, but we do know that it is possible in quite a few conditions.

Our theist, of course, jumps to the claim that life is complex, but this doesn't at all show that the first lifeform was not simple. Of course, to go from simple to complex we need a mechanism that accomplishes the task. Luckily enough for us, we have evolution, which is more than adequate to the job and has been demonstrated to have the ability to go from simple to complex (see above and/or pick up any textbook)."

Circular reasoning.

GCT said...

There's nothing circular about it. One statement indicates that we don't know exactly how life came about, the other indicates that we do know how it moves from simple to more complex - i.e. with evolution. You'll have to do better.

a said...

Look at the original poast. The argument for evolution here is that it can occur if there is a mechanism to make it occur. Then you claim in the portion I quoted that evolution is the mechanism. Circular.

Zealous "evil"-utionists are even worse than zealous Christians.

GCT said...

No, you've completely misread it. Evolution is the mechanism, end of story. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that evolution needs a mechanism?

Tyler said...

== Teapot: If synthesis occurs under conditions that could reasonably have been expected to have occured on a prebiotic earth, yes.

"Reasonably expected" according to what standard, exactly?

Or is that a rhetorical question... ==

That's what I thought...

hmdonald said...

It's a bummer that Tyler is so agressive. I thought I'd like contributing here, but I don't know how to have an enjoyable conversation with someone that just knows how to insult poorly.

GCT - cool that you're letting Tyler stay around. I'm all about speaking freely, but I'm surprised you're letting Tyler speak so agressively. Any reasonable debate typically doesn't escalate to such a level. I doubt that Tyler would provide such speech and rhetoric if the debate were televised or whatever.

Tyler said...

hmdonald (likely another of Teapot's sock puppets): It's a bummer that Tyler is so agressive.

Why's that?

hmdonald: I thought I'd like contributing here...

"... but, unfortunately for me, there are people here who don't let anyone get away with whiny, incoherent, concern trolling posts."

hmdonald:... but I don't know how to have an enjoyable conversation with someone that just knows how to insult poorly.

You haven't demonstrated that you know how to have any type of coherent conversation, enjoyable or otherwise.

hmdonald: Any reasonable debate typically doesn't escalate to such a level.

You think Teapot's (you're) being reasonable?

:snort:

hmdonald: I doubt that Tyler would provide such speech and rhetoric if the debate were televised or whatever.

I doubt you would know a reasonable debate if it took you to dinner and a movie then back to your place to screw your "brains" out.

a said...

Tyler, you are nothing but another wannabe "internet bully." You offer no positive information for your point, and simply attempt to tear down others posts. If you are going to debate, at least offer some new info to back your own point up.

Tyler said...

a(rdent concern troll, likely a[nother] Teapot sock puppet): Tyler, you are nothing but another wannabe "internet bully."

Sniveling duly noted.

a(rdent concern troll): You offer no positive information for your point...

My guess would be that you can't see it because you're too busy whining about the color of the plate holding the serving of ass kicking you've ordered.

a(rdent concern troll): ... and simply attempt to tear down others posts.

Attempt?

:snort:

Yes, I tear down others' posts from time to time. Perhaps you'll take your own advice and "offer positive information for your point," explaining, per your implication, why tearing people peoples' posts down is a bad thing?

a(rdent concern troll): If you are going to debate, at least offer some new info to back your own point up.

What point haven't I backed up/would you like me to back up?

a said...

Somebody's got insecurity issues. I hope you're not like this in real life saying things like, "Whoa dude, I just totally kicked his ass. I am awesome!" LOL! Get a clue, you hateful jackass. <---that's some irony right there.

JB said...

Wow, just stumbled into Douchebag City and Tyler's the mayor. Good for a laugh, sad for your life.

Tyler said...

a(rdent concern troll): Somebody's got insecurity issues.

I suppose you'll once again be taking your own advice and "offering positive information for your point"?

Didn't think so.

a(rdent concern troll): ... that's some irony right there.

Acknowledging you're an ironic fucktard is the first step...

Tyler said...

JB: Wow, just stumbled into Douchebag City and Tyler's the mayor. Good for a laugh, sad for your life.

wow u r prezdint lulz!!!!1

a said...

I would be willing to bet that Tyler is a fat 30 year old living in his parents' basement.

Tyler said...

Translation: a(rdent concern troll): I'm a fat 30 year old with projection issues, and I live in my parents' basement.

a said...

Ah, the I'm rubber, you're glue defense. Touche dickwad.

Tyler said...

:chortle: Uh, yeah. That was me defending myself... like an iceberg defends itself against an inflatable raft.

a said...

:chortle: :cough: :wondering if Tyler will ever realize what a loser he is for posting actions in his posts: :realizing he's too stupid:

Tyler said...

If only irony were legal tender...

a said...

then you still couldn't afford a dictionary to look up "satire."

Tyler said...

Don't need a dictionary when I have you, you self satirical concern troll you.

a said...

Ooooooh, burn. That hurts Tyler. Really it does. Not sure how I'll sleep tonight.

a said...

Ooooooh, burn. That hurts Tyler. Really it does. Not sure how I'll sleep tonight.

Tyler said...

Regardless of whether or not you sleep, you'll still be you in the morning, and if you've a shred of integrity, that will be your concern. And since I don't have to wake up next to you, matters nothing to me past spanking you with the switch of ironic concern trolling you keep handing me with every post you make.

a said...

So you like to spank other men? CHECK PLEASE!

Anonymous said...

shit whore mary shit dirty jezzers

GCT said...

What's up with the trolls? Oh, I think I know. It's probably the person on Daylight Atheism that has decided to post personal attacks and bigoted dismissals based on a blog title.