DNAunion: In reply to FMAJ's "Re: Examples of natural selection generating
CSI" reply posted 10/16/2000.
>>FMAJ: But in Dembski's case calculations are very relevant in addressing
his filter.
>> DNAunion: In OOL research, prebiotically-plausible experiments are very
relevant to addressing their claims, and such experiments do not support
their overall claim.
>>FMAJ: But they do.
DNAunion: No they don't. But finally - at long last - FMAJ is going to let
us all know what his 2 pillars of faith in the purely-natural origin of life
are. Too bad that advances in scientific knowledge over the last several
decades have done to his pillars of faith what acid rain's destructive
effects have done to many pillars of ancient ruins, having eroded the once
mighty pillars to a state of no longer being able to support what they are
supposed to.
>>FMAJ: Miller Urey supports that building blocks of life could arise from
simple processes for instance.
DNAunion: Too bad there are at least half a dozen valid problems with
relating Miller's experiment to the assumed natural origin of life on Earth.
Here is a run down (but I reserve the option of not providing them to FMAJ,
as he will just dismiss the material as "non sequitur", judging from his
previous actions).
1. Produced both L- and D- amino acids
2. Produced only 13 of the 20 biological amino acids.
3. Produced many non-proteinous amino acids
4. No purines or pyrimidines produced
5. No long-chain fatty acids produced
6. No proteins were produced (some sources have implied they were).
7. Prebiotic atmosphere was probably neutral, not reducing.
8. Electric Discharge Failed To Mimic Lightning
9. Need to protect products from forces that created them.
Based upon the above listed objections, the notion that the Miller/Urey
experiment's provides us with a realistic explanation for the first steps in
abiogenesis is erroneous.
>>FMAJ: So what has Dembski done to support his assertions? Nothing so far.
No calculations... Nothing.
DNAunion: Wrong. Dembski has done *at least* one thing to support his
assertions - you just think that he is wrong about it/them. What have OOL
researchers done to support the assertion that life originated by purely
natural means here on Earth? Nothing? No, you claim the Miller-Urey
experiment (and later Fox's work with proteinoid microspheres) were what they
have done to support their position. But even those that hold to a
purely-natural OOL state that the experiments you use as evidence are no
longer valid models of prebiotic conditions or "prebiotic life" (i.e.,
protocells).
>>FMAJ: Combine this with the enormous problems identified by many …
DNAunion: Such as?
>>FMAJ: … and it's not hard to realize that Dembksi has a lot of work to do
before his assertions can be considered scientific.
DNAunion: Yet OOL researchers' unsupported assumption - which has
accumulated evidence pointing *away* from it over the years - "can be
considered scientific"?
>>FMAJ: If you agree that he has not backed up his claims with any
calculations then how can we take Dembski's argument seriouslu?
>> DNAunion: If you agree that OOL researchers have not backed up their
claims with valid experiments, then how can we take their argument seriously?
>>FMAJ: But they do back up their claims with valid experiments.
DNAunion: No, they have never performed a single valid experiment that shows
that life can arise from non-life by purely-natural means. They *try* to
back up their assumption with experiments, but they don't succeed.
>>FMAJ: Since you seem to admit that Dembski does not, that's enough to
indict him.
DNAunion: The key word is *SEEM*. Show me where I *actually* admitted that
Dembski does not.
>>Richard Wein: Nor has he been willing to clarify the method of the Design
Inference.
>> DNAunion: Nor have OOL researchers ever clarified the processes that led
to the OOL.
> >FMAJ: See above.
>> DNAunion: See above.
>>FMAJ: Welll said. Indeed your inability to address Richard's comments are
duely noted.
DNAunion: You inability to validly address my comments is duly noted.
>>FMAJ: But OOL researchers have clarified the processes.
>> DNAunion: Another unfounded claim on your part? Please provide us with
details of how OOL researchers have clarified the processes that actually led
to the origin of life here on Earth.
>>FMAJ: Irrelevant to the issue.
DNAunion: So we all see that you are incapable of supporting your assertions
(but I already knew that!) and attempt to wave away the challenge by claiming
it - and not your statement - is invalid in some manner. Pretty typical of
your tactics. Why not read your statement and my reply. Here, I will post
them again.
>>FMAJ: But OOL researchers have clarified the processes.
>> DNAunion: ... Please provide us with details of how OOL researchers have
clarified the processes that actually led to the origin of life here on
Earth.
Sounds like a pretty relevant reply, asking you to back up your unsupported
assertion.
>>FMAJ: But Miller Urey comes to mind as one of the many experiments.
DNAunion: See above. The experiment does not demonstrate what you appear to
believe it does.
>>FMAJ: Sydney Fox experiments with protocells.
DNAunion: And now FMAJ relies on another outdated, and discredited, series
of experiments. Fox's protocells were proteinoid microspheres.
Proteinoids are not proteins since: (1) their structures are branched because
many bonds form between the wrong functional groups, (2) they contain both
enantiomeric forms of amino acids, and (3) their sequences are not
repeatable. And because no template is used for their production,
proteinoids also lack genetic continuity: as a result, their ability to
evolve is severely restricted, if it exists at all. In addition, despite
Fox's claims, their geological relevance is doubtful (that is, the conditions
required for their production are unlikely to have existed in a real
prebiotic setting).
Individual proteinoids can be coaxed into undergoing further physical changes
that result in a spherical structure of bacterial size. These structures,
called proteinoid microspheres, are claimed to possess many "cell-like"
properties: but they don't. The use of terms/phrases such as "metabolism",
"growth", "binary fission", "budding like yeasts", "reproduction", "cell-like
membrane", and "communication", in relation to proteinoid microspheres,
requires that their definitions be stretched past unrealistic limits. Again,
details are available upon request (but I reserve the option of not providing
them to FMAJ, as he will just dismiss the material as "non sequitur", judging
from his previous actions).
>>FMAJ: And still nothing from Dembski. Is that not amazing?
DNAunion: The only amazing thing is that you believe Miller and Fox (just
about) wrapped up the origin of life. Let me paraphrase you, "And still
nothing from OOL researchers. Is that not amazing?".
>>FMAJ: But even if you were correct, how is the failure of OOL researchers
an excuse for Dembski's failure.
>>DNAunion: But even if you were correct, how is Dembski's failure an excuse
for the failure of OOL researchers?
>>FMAJ: It isn't. Thanks for playing.
DNAunion: Thanks for playing one of your favorite games - twisting my
position to be something that it is not. I explicitly stated elsewhere -
directly to you - that I do NOT consider that Dembski should "get off the
hook" because OOL researchers do: but rather, that NEITHER side should get
off the hook: that both sides must validate their positions.
>>Richard Wein: His silence on these subjects is very telling.
>>DNAunion: The silence of the OOL researchers is very telling.
>>FMAJ: Poor logic. Sad to see how DNAunion has no logical argument or
rebuttal.
>> DNAunion: Poor logic. Not surprised to see that FMAJ has no logical
argument or rebuttal to my statements.
>>FMAJ: Oh dear. DNAunion is clearly left with no logic.
DNAunion: Oh [Mr. intentionally-trying to offend and irritate]. FMAJ is
clearly left with no evidence.
>>FMAJ: Richard's predictions seem to be hitting too close for comfort.
>>DNAunion: You see what you wish to see. Your subjectivity causes you too
see things that just aren't there.
>>FMAJ: Such as the non existent supporting evidence by Dembski you mean?
DNAunion: No, such as the rejected-for-years supporting evidence you
provided for a purely-natural OOL.
>>FMAJ: Thanks DNA
>> DNAunion: Thanks FMAJ for adding absolutely nothing - but a meaningless
post - to the discussion here. Keep up the bad work.
>>ROTFL. Don't be too hard on yourself dear.
DNAunion: Quick note. This was one of FMAJ's many references (the second
one in this post alone) to me as "Dear" *after* I told him I found his doing
so offensive: which he took as a cue to *INCREASE* his use of the term.
Nothing like trying one's best to offend and/or irritate the opponent (but
since FMAJ is not an IDist, his offenses are allowed by the majority here).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 04:56:00 EDT