Re: Nobel Prize winners and ID

On Nov 22, 9:48 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Nov 23, 12:23 am, Seanpit <sean...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Nov 22, 1:50 pm, wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

intelligence is capable of achieving vs. what non-intelligent nature
is capable of achieving.  Telling this difference is the basis of SETI
and all other forms of ID theories which are very much a part of
modern science.

ID does not say intelligence creates basic features of nature. life is
a feature of nature. it's a natural process. your argument is like
saying that gort invented electromagnetism. and that simply aint true..

The origin of DNA isn't in question here.  As I've already explained
to you, I wouldn't be surprised if some non-intelligent mechanism was
show to be ultimately capable of producing at least some rudimentary
form of DNA.  What this discussion is about is the production of
certain types of DNA sequences.  Humans can produce DNA from scratch
and humans can produce many types of DNA sequences that go well beyond
anything that known non-intelligent nature can achieve (AFAWCT).

This is in fact the basis of DNA bar-code tags that are being used to
mark synthetic DNA sequences as true artifacts. Also, functional
aspects of certain types of DNA are used by famous scientists,
mathematicians, and even several Nobel Prize winners to argue that the
functional informational complexity at the level needed to produce the
most simple living thing is so far beyond any known non-intelligent
force of nature that intelligence was most certainly involved with the
origin of such functional informational complexity on this planet.

you've confused yourself...again. because what panspermia claims is
that the ORIGIN of DNA is extraterrestrial but that the EVOLUTION of
life is not. a direct contradiction to what you're claiming.

What the scientists I reference claim is that the simplest living
thing, not just DNA by itself, is too complex to have arisen without
intelligent design.

Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in
chemistry, wrote: "The statistical probability that organic structures
and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living
organisms would be generated by accident, is zero."

- I. Prigogine, N. Gregair, A. Babbyabtz, Physics Today 25, pp.
23-28.

Professor Francis Crick, awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of
DNA, wrote:

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would
have had to have been satisfied to get it going. . .
The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in
(1020)2,000=1040,000, an outrageously small probability that could not
be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.

Crick, F., Life Itself, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981, p.88.
Crick, F., Evolution from Space, p.24.

Crick confided to Professor Robert Shapiro that he personally wasn't
really sold on the theory, and his real purpose in espousing this new
theory was to get people to drop all previous theories that they held
as true (such as the chemical soup theory, and the mutation theory,
etc., all of them built on the idea that live matter can evolve from
dead matter, which he held can't be true)

R. Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on
earth, New York: Bantam Books, 1986, pp. 227-228.

Famous astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, together with Chandra
Wickramasinghe, in Evolution from Space, said that just as it's
impossible for life to have developed by chance in our solar system,
so too there could never have developed intelligent life anywhere else
in our entire universe as well.

Hoyle also wrote:

"The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is
one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it . . . It is big enough to
bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval
soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings
of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of
purposeful intelligence (Sir Fred Hoyle, "Hoyle on Evolution," p.
105).

Hoyles colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe concluded:

"From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly
brainwashed to believe science cannot be consistent with any kind of
deliberate creation. That notion has been painfully shed. . . Now we
realize the only logical answer to life is creation (interview in the
London Daily Express, August 14, 1981).

Richard E Smalley, winner of the 1996 Nobel Prize in chemistry, as
asked to present the keynote address at Tuskegee University's 79th
Annual Scholarship Convocation/Parents' Recognition Program. In his
address he mentioned the ideas of evolution versus creation noting
that, "Genesis was right. There was a creation". Smalley also made
the following endorsement: " Evolution has just been dealt its death
blow. After reading Origins of Life, with my background in chemistry
and physics, it is clear evolution could not have occurred."

http://www.tuskegee.edu/Global/story.asp?S=2382961&nav=CcWvRbj5
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/oct/05100605.html

in addition, where's your data?  you again and again and again claim
that evolution is not supported by the facts

The mechanism of RM/NS is not supported by any sort of statistical
analysis or demonstration of any kind beyond very very low levels of
functional complexity (i.e., beyond the 1000aa level of functional
complexity - specifically).

but you have NO data...no statistics...no analysis to support your
claim. you INSIST that others provide you with data

The ToE is supposed to be based on real science. Real scientific
theories are backed up by statistical analysis that produces real
predictive value. Where is this analysis when it comes to the
proposed mechanism of RM/NS? It isn't there. My position, in
comparison, is backed up by a great deal of statistical analysis that
is supported and confirmed by real life observations.

http://www.detectingdesign.com/flagellum.html#Calculation

but REFUSE to supply any data on your creationist assertions.

I've supplied far far more data and calculations than anyone in this
forum, or in all of scientific literature for that matter, when it
comes to the proposed mechanism of RM/NS. Where are any numbers or
mathematical analysis of any kind coming from your camp?

You might think these scientists are just plain nuts, but arguments
against the ID concept isn't as clear cut as you make them out to
be . . . for a fair number of very intelligent men and women of science..

and since you've both misrepresentated what they say AND refuse to
supply what you INSIST others supply...that is, data to support your
assertions, we can safely dismiss your argument as more creationism
101

I've directly quoted what they said . . . in context. They don't
believe it possible for life to have been produced on this planet
without outside intelligent input. That's a fact. They really do/did
believe this.

personally i think the easter bunny did it. and i have the proof. it's
the same proof you offer for your assertions: none.

You think complete random chance did the job - Mindless Nature.
That's what you think. You don't think any intelligent input was
necessary; that blind random forces of nature are perfectly capable.
Have any evidence? - much less "proof"? Do you even have any likely
mechanism at all beyond very very low levels of functional
complexity? Have any of what you call "proof"? I'd love to see some
real numbers here - some real math and statistical analysis of any
kind to support your lovely little stories.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The uncertainty of evolution
    ... evolution proceeded by natural selection, ... transmitted information, as well as DNA, in the evolution of the human ... and much of the rest of life on Earth. ... lifetime for such beings is short, compared to the travel time. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Intelligent Fiddling (Was: Textbook text candidate)
    ... DNA in the lab). ... has altered life also. ... design or an artefact of the search techniques. ... Although evolution has been the leading theory for observed changes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Fiddling (Was: Textbook text candidate)
    ... DNA in the lab). ... has altered life also. ... I am saying that ID/IF has produced no valid test of design ... Although evolution has been the leading theory for observed changes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Intelligent Fiddling (Was: Textbook text candidate)
    ... didn't invent life (this includes planting messages in DNA ... Similarly, if DNA fiddlers are the same way, then it increases ... design or an artefact of the search techniques. ... Although evolution has been the leading theory for observed changes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (talk.origins)