Objections to evidence provided for the existence of God
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2863-objections-to-evidence-provided-for-the-existence-of-god
Sean C. Riley @Intelligent Design Academy "Following a list of positive evidence of Gods existence, not depending on gaps or lack of knowledge."
These, at least, I can address.
1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
You assert that it had a beginning. This is not known, and is one of the gaps I am referring to.
2. The universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.
This is not a logical statement. Yes, the universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. In no way does this require an intelligent agent to implement those laws. Again, you are making an assertion with no evidence to support it.
3. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.
And?
4. Fine-Tuning. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Over 100 constants must be just right.
Fine-tuning is an argument made by people who don't grasp the vastness of time and space, nor the complexity of biology and evolution. A much stronger argument (and one we actually do see evidence of) is that these conditions were likely, almost inevitably, going to occur somewhere in the universe at some point in time, simply due to the sheer enormity of it and the seemingly incalculable number of possible systems present.
5. Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.
Neither has divine creation. At least abiogenesis has theoretical models based in functional science.
6. Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed.
No, cells are not literally factories. They are literally cells. They are figuratively like factories. You don't get to redefine language and then point to your redefined words to claim them as evidence.
7. A minimal Cell requires 560 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids, which totals 224.000 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 40^224.000!
Okay...and? This is a statement, not evidence of anything except what a cell requires.
8.Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
Why would they never accumulate on a prebiotic Earth, and how can you know this? This one I genuinely don't know.
9. The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed.
Utter nonsense. This is an entirely subjective statement. To me, the universe and biological systems appear to be the result of natural processes. Therefore, most probably, they are not designed. See how easy that is?
10. Codified Information. DNA has the highest storage density known, and stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be tracked back to intelligence
Just like your factory analogy above, you're trying to use language (a system created by humans) to prove something about nature.
11. The Fossil Record. The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of lifeforms, without intermediates.
No, it demonstrates that human beings have discovered fossil records of lifeforms and have not discovered evidence of any intermediate lifeforms. The lack of knowledge of a thing is not the same thing a thing never having existed. This is a perfect example of the God of the Gaps.
12. Consciousness and language. Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from physical matter.
Another baseless assertion. We have no idea what consciousness is. Scientists and philosophers have debated this for centuries. The mind, conscience, logic...everything you're describing exists within the brain. That is the only thing we do know about it. If there is more to it, we haven't determined that with any certainty yet. But to suggest they cannot emerge from physical matter is disingenuous when our best knowledge on the subject at this time suggests that they are least connected to, if not entirely emergent from the brain.
13. Human objective logic depends and can only derive from a pre-existing necessary first mind with objective logic.
Another assertion without evidence.
14. Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
This is a gross misreprentation of two very broad fields of study. But even if it were true, so what? It still wouldn't provide any actual evidence of that Creator.
15. The Bible. The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
Nope, nope, nope. The Bible is useless as evidence of anything. It is a cobbled together work of fiction, interpreted hundreds of different ways, much of its historicity disproven (or at least lacking any corroborating proof).
16. Archaeology. Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts.
This is flatly false. You are either lying or grossly misinformed.
17. History. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead
Also false. At this point I'm less inclined to trust any of your sources.
18. The Bible's witnesses. There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
Yet, not a single one of these testimonies can be verified by an impartial observer. Not. One.
19. End times. The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring in front of our eyes. New world order, Israel as a nation, microchip implant etc.
More prophecies. The fun thing about prophecies is how vague they are, so that people can go back and say, "See? This is what that prophecy meant all along!"
20. After-life experiences. Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.
What makes a credible witness for witnessing the afterlife?
There are scientific explanations for these experiences. I'm open to the idea that there could be more to this, but primarily out of my own ignorance on the subject. However, an afterlife still does not prove the existence of God or a created universe. The afterlife could simply be another facet of the natural universe. This is called intellectual honesty, saying "I don't know."
Objection: 1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
You assert that it had a beginning. This is not known, and is one of the gaps I am referring to.
Response: The universe most probably had a beginning
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1297-the-universe-most-probably-had-a-beginning
Arno Penzias, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos:
‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’
Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83
Mithani, and Vilenkin: Did the universe have a beginning?:
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes. Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
NASA:
The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf
Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole, therefore, forms a singularity at its center from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is, therefore, finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths. Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded".
Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. In 2012 Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”[1] “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
A.Vilenkin, cited in “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event,” by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist (January 11, 2012).
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
===========================================================================================================================================================
Objection: The universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.
This is not a logical statement. Yes, the universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. In no way does this require an intelligent agent to implement those laws. Again, you are making an assertion with no evidence to support it.
3. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.
And?
Response: Laws of Physics, where did they come from?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from
The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other. Origins make only sense in face of Intelligent Design.
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —*WH. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
Paul Davies: The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things, but scientists do not necessarily interpret that as evidence for meaning or purpose in the universe.
The only rational explanation is however that God created this coherent scheme of things since there is no other alternative explanation. That's why atheists rather than admit that, prefer to argue of " not knowing " of its cause.
Our very ability to establish the laws of nature depends on their stability.(In fact, the idea of a law of nature implies stability.) Likewise, the laws of nature must remain constant long enough to provide the kind of stability life requires through the building of nested layers of complexity. The properties of the most fundamental units of complexity we know of, quarks, must remain constant in order for them to form larger units, protons and neutrons, which then go into building even larger units, atoms, and so on, all the way to stars, planets, and in some sense, people. The lower levels of complexity provide the structure and carry the information of life. There is still a great deal of mystery about how the various levels relate, but clearly, at each level, structures must remain stable over vast stretches of space and time. 4
And our universe does not merely contain complex structures; it also contains elaborately nested layers of higher and higher complexity. Consider complex carbon atoms, within still more complex sugars and nucleotides, within more complex DNA molecules, within complex nuclei, within complex neurons, within the complex human brain, all of which are integrated in a human body. Such “complexification” would be impossible in both a totally chaotic, unstable universe and an utterly simple, homogeneous universe of, say, hydrogen atoms or quarks.
Of course, although nature’s laws are generally stable, simple, and linear—while allowing the complexity necessary for life—they do take more complicated forms. But they usually do so only in those regions of the universe
far removed from our everyday experiences: general relativistic effects in high-gravity environments, the strong nuclear force inside the atomic nucleus, quantum mechanical interactions among electrons in atoms. And even in these far-flung regions, nature still guides us toward discovery. Even within the more complicated realm of quantum mechanics, for instance, we can describe many interactions with the relatively simple Schrödinger Equation. Eugene Wigner famously spoke of the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural science”—unreasonable only if one assumes, we might add, that the universe is not underwritten by reason. Wigner was impressed by the simplicity of the mathematics that describes the workings of the universe and our relative ease in discovering them. Philosopher Mark Steiner, in The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem, has updated Wigner’s musings with detailed examples of the deep connections and uncanny predictive power of pure mathematics as applied to the laws of nature
Described by man, Prescribed by God. There is no scientific reason why there should be any laws at all. It would be perfectly logical for there to be chaos instead of order. Therefore the FACT of order itself suggests that somewhere at the bottom of all this there is a Mind at work. This Mind, which is uncaused, can be called 'God.' If someone asked me what's your definition of 'God', I would say 'That which is Uncaused and the source of all that is Caused.' 3
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: Fine-tuning is an argument made by people who don't grasp the vastness of time and space, nor the complexity of biology and evolution. A much stronger argument (and one we actually do see evidence of) is that these conditions were likely, almost inevitably, going to occur somewhere in the universe at some point in time, simply due to the sheer enormity of it and the seemingly incalculable number of possible systems present.
Response: Without fine-tuning of the Big Bang , there would be no Universe at all.
Fine-tuning of the Big Bang
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1866-fine-tuning-of-the-big-bang
The Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history
Professor Stephen Hawking:
'If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state.' -
Steven Weinberg Department of Physics, University of Texas
There are now two cosmological constant problems. The old cosmological constant problem is to understand in a natural way why the vacuum energy density ρV is not very much larger. We can reliably calculate some contributions to ρV , like the energy density in fluctuations in the gravitational field at graviton energies nearly up to the Planck scale, which is larger than is observationally allowed by some 120 orders of magnitude. Such terms in ρV can be cancelled by other contributions that we can’t calculate, but the cancellation then has to be accurate to 120 decimal places.
When one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory. 5 Physicists, who have fretted over the cosmological constant paradox for years, have noted that calculations such as the above involve only the electromagnetic force, and so perhaps when the contributions of the other known forces are included, all terms will cancel out to exactly zero, as a consequence of some unknown fundamental principle of physics. But these hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implied that the cosmological constant must be slightly positive. This meant that physicists were left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121st digit.
Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10^123 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago. In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation.
Lee Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:
We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.
Max Tegmark:
“How far could you rotate the dark-energy knob before the “Oops!” moment? If rotating it…by a full turn would vary the density across the full range, then the actual knob setting for our Universe is about 10^123 of a turn away from the halfway point. That means that if you want to tune the knob to allow galaxies to form, you have to get the angle by which you rotate it right to 123 decimal places!
That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. 4
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.
Neither has divine creation. At least abiogenesis has theoretical models based in functional science.
Response: Life comes only from life. Repeatedly proven correct.
Chance of intelligence to set up life:
100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence does elaborate blueprints and constructs complex factories and machines with specific purposes.
Chance of unguided random natural events doing it:
Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce functional proteins on early earth external to cellular biosynthesis:
1 in 10^200.000 That's virtually the same as 0%. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.
Abiogenesis is virtually impossible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-virtually-impossible
No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life, and reproduce
a self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization
Observation:
The origin of life depends on biological cells, which perpetuate life upon the complex action of
- factory portals with fully automated security checkpoints and control ( membrane proteins )
- factory compartments ( organelles )
- a library index and fully automated information classification, storage and retrieval program ( chromosomes, and the gene regulatory network )
- molecular computers, hardware ( DNA )
- software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, ( the genetic and over a dozen epigenetic codes )
- information retrieval ( RNA polymerase )
- transmission ( messenger RNA )
- translation ( Ribosome )
- signalling ( hormones )
- complex machines ( proteins )
- taxis ( dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles )
- molecular highways ( tubulins, used by dynein and kinesin proteins for molecular transport to various destinations )
- tagging programs ( each protein has a tag, which is an amino acid sequence ) informing other molecular transport machines where to transport them.
- factory assembly lines ( fatty acid synthase, non-ribosomal peptide synthase )
- error check and repair systems ( exonucleolytic proofreading, strand-directed mismatch repair )
- recycling methods ( endocytic recycling )
- waste grinders and management ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders )
- power generating plants ( mitochondria )
- power turbines ( ATP synthase )
- electric circuits ( the metabolic network )
Biological cells are a veritable micro-miniaturized industrial park full of interlinked and interdependent factories containing millions of exquisitely designed
pieces of intricate molecular machinery. Biological Cells do not resemble factory parks, they ARE an industrial park of various interconnected factories, working in conjunction.
Hypothesis (Prediction):
Complex machines and interconnected factory parks are intelligently designed. Biological cells are intelligently designed. Factories can not self-assemble spontaneously
by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction. The claim can be falsified, once someone can demonstrate that factories
can self-assemble spontaneously by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction.
Experiment:
Since origin of life experiments began, nobody was able to bring up an experiment, replicating the origin of life by natural means.
Eugene Koonin, advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics, writes in his book: The Logic of Chance:
" The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351:
The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of
the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique
events are not conducive to scientific study.
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the
multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. The difficulties remain formidable. For all the effort, we do not currently have
coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were
not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives
for the origin of life. " Scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a
conscious creative agency. The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life…
is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview
of who wants naturalism to be true.
Conclusion:
Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly
improbable, then design is highly probable. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so
a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable, so, by applying Bayesian probability, we can conclude that Life is most probably intelligently designed.
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: Objection: cells are not factories in a literal sense.
Answer: Factory is from latin, and means fabricare, or make. Produce, manufacture. A factory or manufacturing plant is a site, usually consisting of buildings and machinery, or more commonly a complex having several buildings, where, in fully automated factories for example, pre-programmed robots, manufacture goods or operate machines processing one product into another. And that's PRECISELY what cells do. They produce other cells through self-replication, through complex machine processing, computing etc. They produce all organelles, proteins, membranes, parts, they make a copy of themselves. Self-replication is a marvel of engineering. the most advanced method of manufacturing. And fully automated. No external help required. If we could make factories like that, we would be able to create a society where machines do all the work for us, and we would have time only to entertain us, no work, nor money needed anymore..... And if factories could evolve to produce subsequently better, more adapted products, that would add even further complexity, and point to even more requirement of pre-programming to get the feat done.
The Molecular Fabric of Cells BIOTOL, B.C. Currell and R C.E Dam-Mieras (Auth.)
http://libgen.io/search.php?req=The+Molecular+Fabric+of+Cells&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def
The central theme of both of these texts is to consider cells as biological factories. Cells are, indeed, outstanding factories. Each cell type takes in its own set of chemicals and making its own collection of products. The range of products is quite remarkable and encompass chemically simple compounds such as ethanol and carbon dioxide as well as the extremely complex proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and secondary products.
Membranes represent the walls of the cellular factory. Membranes control what comes into the factory and what leaves. We may view the cytoplasm and its surrounding plasma membrane as being the workshop of the chemical factory. The Golgi apparatus, another membranous structure embedded in the cytoplasm, is also involved in the processing of macromolecules made within the cell. Its special properties are for modifying cell products so that they can be exported from the cell. In our chemical factory, they are the packaging and exporting department. Enzymes are indeed rather like the workers in a large complex industrial process. Each is designed to carry out a specific task in a specific area of the factory.
To understand how a factory operates requires knowledge of the tools and equipment available within the factory and how these tools are organized. We might anticipate that our biological factories will be comprised of structural and functional elements.
Plant Cells as Chemical Factories: Control and Recovery of Valuable Products
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0641-4_14
Microbial cell factory is an approach to bioengineering which considers microbial cells as a production facility in which the optimization process largely depends on metabolic engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_cell_factory
Microbial Cell Factories is an open access peer-reviewed journal that covers any topic related to the development, use and investigation of microbial cells as producers of recombinant proteins and natural products
https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/
Fine Tuning our Cellular Factories: Sirtuins in Mitochondrial Biology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111451/
Cells As Molecular Factories
Eukaryotic cells are molecular factories in two senses: cells produce molecules and cells are made up of molecules.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/bioactivities/cellmolecular
Michael Denton: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis:
The cell is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.
Ribosome: Lessons of a molecular factory construction
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026893314040116
Nucleolus: the ribosome factory
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712681
Ribosome: The cell city's factories
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/natural-history/ribosome-the-cell-citys-factories
In the cell, there are production lines, in this case, manufacturing new proteins of many different sorts. New goods and products are continually being manufactured from raw materials. In cities this takes place in workshops and factories. Raw materials are transformed, usually in a sequence of steps on a production line, into finished products. The process is governed by a clear set of instructions or specifications. In some cases the final products are for immediate or local use, in others they are packaged for export.
The Cell's Protein Factory in Action
What looks like a jumble of rubber bands and twisty ties is the ribosome, the cellular protein factory.
https://www.livescience.com/41863-ribosomes-protein-factory-nigms.html
Chloroplasts are the microscopic factories on which all life on Earth is based.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-chloroplast-For-what-it-is-used
Visualization of the active expression site locus by tagging with green fluorescent protein shows that it is specifically located at this unique pol I transcriptional factory.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/full/414759a.html
There are millions of protein factories in every cell. Surprise, they’re not all the same
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/there-are-millions-protein-factories-every-cell-surprise-they-re-not-all-same
Rough ER is also a membrane factory for the cell; it grows in place by adding membrane proteins and phospholipids to its own membrane.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Print_version
Endoplasmic reticulum: Scientists image 'parking garage' helix structure in protein-making factory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718130617.htm
Theoretical biologists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have used a New Mexico supercomputer to aid an international research team in untangling another mystery related to ribosomes -- those enigmatic jumbles of molecules that are the protein factories of living cells.
https://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-ratchet-cellular-protein-factory.html
The molecular factory that translates the information from RNA to proteins is called the "ribosome"
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-key-worker-protein-synthesis-factory.html
Quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum protein factory
The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a factory where secretory proteins are manufactured, and where stringent quality-control systems ensure that only correctly folded proteins are sent to their final destinations. The changing needs of the ER factory are monitored by integrated signalling pathways that constantly adjust the levels of folding assistants.
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature02262
The cell is a mind-bogglingly complex and intricate marvel of nano-technology. Every one of the trillions of cells in your body is not “like” an automated nano-factory. It is an automated nano-factory.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pardon-me-if-i-am-not-impressed-dr-miller/
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: 7. A minimal Cell requires 560 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids, which totals 224.000 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 40^224.000!
Okay...and? This is a statement, not evidence of anything except what a cell requires.
Response: Leading scientists have calculated that the statistical probability of the fine-tuning of the universe, and life emerging by random unguided events, is far beyond the limit of Borel's law, which is in the order of 1 in 10^50.
This probability is hard to imagine but an illustration may help. Imagine covering the whole of the USA with small coins, edge to edge. Now imagine piling other coins on each of these millions of coins. Now imagine continuing to pile coins on each coin until reaching the moon about 400,000 km away! If you were told that within this vast mountain of coins there was one coin different to all the others. The statistical chance of finding that one coin is about 1 in 10^50. In other words, the evidence that our universe is designed is overwhelming!
A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument. If the probability of an event is an infinitesimally small, then, for all practical purposes, the probability is equal to zero.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Statistical_impossibility
The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance
To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :
As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.
http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathproofcreat.html
LES PROBABILITIES DINOMBRABLES ET LEURS APPLICATIONS ARITHMtTIOUES.
Par M. EmiIe BoreI (Paris) 8 novembre 1908
http://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03019651
Strong law of large numbers
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Strong_law_of_large_numbers
And to mention: 1. The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of pre-biological ( chemical) evolution.
2. The formation of amide bonds without the assistance of enzymes poses a major challenge for theories of the orgin of life. 2
3. The best one can hope for from such a scenario is a racemic polymer of proteinous and non-proteinous amino acids with no relevance to living systems.
4. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favoured in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favours depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed.
5. Even if there were billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates, even if, as is claimed, there was no oxygen in the prebiotic earth, then there would be no protection from UV light, which would destroy and disintegrate prebiotic organic compounds. Secondly, even if there would be a sequence, producing a functional folding protein, by itself, if not inserted in a functional way in the cell, it would absolutely no function. It would just lay around, and then soon disintegrate. Furthermore, in modern cells proteins are tagged and transported on molecular highways to their precise destination, where they are utilized. Obviously, all this was not extant on the early earth.
6. To form a chain, it is necessary to react bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others. If a unifunctional monomer (with only one functional group) reacts with the end of the chain, the chain can grow no further at this end. If only a small fraction of unifunctional molecules were present, long polymers could not form. But all ‘prebiotic simulation’ experiments produce at least three times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.
7. in modern organisms, linking amino acids and bond one amino acid to the next to build a protein is a highly sophisticated and complex process. Each amino acid is activated to overcome an energy barrier that naturally prevents the linking up of adjacent amino acids in solution, and the energy for this process comes from ATP. Then, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) enzymes bond each amino acid, in two steps, to the correct tRNA.” The tRNA adaptors are detachable once the amino acid has been joined to the end of the growing protein. How could/would the transition of non-enzymatic protein elongation and formation have occurred from when this machinery was non-extant on early earth, to the process promoted by the Cell machinery? The hugeness of this gap cannot be overstated.
[size=12]==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: [/size] 8.Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
Why would they never accumulate on a prebiotic Earth, and how can you know this? This one I genuinely don't know.
Response: The hydrothermal-vent hypothesis, and why it fails
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1394-the-hydrothermal-vent-theory-and-why-it-fails
The high concentrations of water on the early Earth would have diluted reactants, diffused away products, AND inhibited condensation reactions. The cytoplasm of living cells contains essential minerals of potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions. If cells manifested naturally, these minerals would need to be present nearby. But marine environments do not have widespread concentrations of these minerals (Switek). Thus, it is clear, life could not have formed in the ocean. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment.
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed.
Utter nonsense. This is an entirely subjective statement. To me, the universe and biological systems appear to be the result of natural processes. Therefore, most probably, they are not designed. See how easy that is?
Response: The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see :
- an object in nature very similar to human-made things
- something made based on mathematical principles
- systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
- something purposefully made for specific goals
- specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message
- irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artefacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
- order or orderly patterns
- hierarchically arranged systems of parts
- intelligence can create artefacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes )
- Fine-tuning
Which of the following is better explained by design, rather than non-design?
Probability theory is the logic of science, dingdong. You do not need to prove everything absolutely for it to make sense within reason. What you need is a tendency for it to
be true statistically. That means evidence of it working repeatedly with low error.
Design can be tested using scientific logic. How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so
we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable. Thus, evidence against non-design (against production of a feature by
undirected natural process) is evidence for design. And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable
empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.
Upon applying above logic, how is the following better explained, by design, or non-design ?
- Components of a complex system that are only useful in the completion of a much larger system and their orderly aggregation in a sequentially correct manner.
- Intermediate sub-products which have by its own no use of any sort unless they are correctly assembled in a larger system.
- Instructional complex information which is required for to make these sub-products and parts, to mount them correctly in the right order and at the right place,
and interconnected correctly in a larger system.
- The making of computer hardware, and highly efficient information storage devices.
- Creating software, based on a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint.
- Information retrieval, transmission, signalling, and translation
- The make of machine parts with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into complex machines, production line complexes, autonomous robots
with error check functions and repair mechanisms, electronic circuit - like networks, energy production factories, power generating plants, energy turbines, recycle
mechanisms and methods, waste grinders and management, organized waste disposal mechanisms, and self distruction when needed to reach a higher end, and veritable
micro-miniaturized factories where all before-metioned systems and parts are required in order for that factory to be self- replicating, and being functional.
- Establishment of advanced communication systems. Signal relay stations. Signal without recognition is meaningless. Communication implies a signaling convention
(a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!” A transmitter and receiver
system made of physical materials, with a functional purpose, performing an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them,
acting as information processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware )
- Selecting the most optimal and efficient code information system and ability to minimize the effects of errors.
- A system which uses a cipher, translating instructions through one language, which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Apobetics, and assign the
code of one system to the code of another system.
- The make of complicated, fast high-performance production systems, and technology with high robustness, flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness, and
quality-management techniques.
- The setup of 1,000–1,500 manufacturing proceedings in parallel by a series of operations and flow connections to reach a common end-goal, the most complex
industry-like production networks known.
- The implementation of a product making system, only in response to actual demand, not in anticipation of forecast demand, thus preventing overproduction.
- Creating machines, production lines and factories that are more complex than man-made things of the sort.
- The organization of software exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory mechanisms - and control networks and systems.
- Error check and detection, inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, information error proofreading and repair mechanisms.
- Foolproofing, applying the key-lock principle to guarantee a proper fit between product and machine.
- Complex production lines which depend on precise optimization and fine-tuning.
- Create complex systems which are able to adapt to variating conditions.
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2863-objections-to-evidence-provided-for-the-existence-of-god
Sean C. Riley @Intelligent Design Academy "Following a list of positive evidence of Gods existence, not depending on gaps or lack of knowledge."
These, at least, I can address.
1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
You assert that it had a beginning. This is not known, and is one of the gaps I am referring to.
2. The universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.
This is not a logical statement. Yes, the universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. In no way does this require an intelligent agent to implement those laws. Again, you are making an assertion with no evidence to support it.
3. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.
And?
4. Fine-Tuning. The fundamental physical constants, the universe, and the earth are finely tuned for life. Over 100 constants must be just right.
Fine-tuning is an argument made by people who don't grasp the vastness of time and space, nor the complexity of biology and evolution. A much stronger argument (and one we actually do see evidence of) is that these conditions were likely, almost inevitably, going to occur somewhere in the universe at some point in time, simply due to the sheer enormity of it and the seemingly incalculable number of possible systems present.
5. Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.
Neither has divine creation. At least abiogenesis has theoretical models based in functional science.
6. Cells ARE literally factories. Biological cells ARE an industrial park of millions of interconnected complex factories, full of machines. Factories are always designed.
No, cells are not literally factories. They are literally cells. They are figuratively like factories. You don't get to redefine language and then point to your redefined words to claim them as evidence.
7. A minimal Cell requires 560 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids, which totals 224.000 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 40^224.000!
Okay...and? This is a statement, not evidence of anything except what a cell requires.
8.Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
Why would they never accumulate on a prebiotic Earth, and how can you know this? This one I genuinely don't know.
9. The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed.
Utter nonsense. This is an entirely subjective statement. To me, the universe and biological systems appear to be the result of natural processes. Therefore, most probably, they are not designed. See how easy that is?
10. Codified Information. DNA has the highest storage density known, and stores the blueprint of life. Blueprints can always be tracked back to intelligence
Just like your factory analogy above, you're trying to use language (a system created by humans) to prove something about nature.
11. The Fossil Record. The Fossil record, and in special the Cambrian explosion, demonstrates the sudden appearance of lifeforms, without intermediates.
No, it demonstrates that human beings have discovered fossil records of lifeforms and have not discovered evidence of any intermediate lifeforms. The lack of knowledge of a thing is not the same thing a thing never having existed. This is a perfect example of the God of the Gaps.
12. Consciousness and language. Conscience, mental reality, language, logic, free will, moral values, are immaterial entities, and cannot emerge from physical matter.
Another baseless assertion. We have no idea what consciousness is. Scientists and philosophers have debated this for centuries. The mind, conscience, logic...everything you're describing exists within the brain. That is the only thing we do know about it. If there is more to it, we haven't determined that with any certainty yet. But to suggest they cannot emerge from physical matter is disingenuous when our best knowledge on the subject at this time suggests that they are least connected to, if not entirely emergent from the brain.
13. Human objective logic depends and can only derive from a pre-existing necessary first mind with objective logic.
Another assertion without evidence.
14. Theology and philosophy. Both lead to an eternal, self-existent, omnipresent transcendent, conscious, intelligent, personal and moral Creator.
This is a gross misreprentation of two very broad fields of study. But even if it were true, so what? It still wouldn't provide any actual evidence of that Creator.
15. The Bible. The Old Testament is a catalogue of fulfilled prophecies of Jesus Christ, and his mission, death, and resurrection foretold with specificity.
Nope, nope, nope. The Bible is useless as evidence of anything. It is a cobbled together work of fiction, interpreted hundreds of different ways, much of its historicity disproven (or at least lacking any corroborating proof).
16. Archaeology. Demonstrates that all events described in the Bible are historical facts.
This is flatly false. You are either lying or grossly misinformed.
17. History. Historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth, and really did physically rise from the dead
Also false. At this point I'm less inclined to trust any of your sources.
18. The Bible's witnesses. There are many testimonies of Jesus doing miracles still today, and Jesus appearing to people all over the globe, still today.
Yet, not a single one of these testimonies can be verified by an impartial observer. Not. One.
19. End times. The signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are occurring in front of our eyes. New world order, Israel as a nation, microchip implant etc.
More prophecies. The fun thing about prophecies is how vague they are, so that people can go back and say, "See? This is what that prophecy meant all along!"
20. After-life experiences. Credible witnesses have seen the afterlife and have come back and reported to us that the afterlife is real.
What makes a credible witness for witnessing the afterlife?
There are scientific explanations for these experiences. I'm open to the idea that there could be more to this, but primarily out of my own ignorance on the subject. However, an afterlife still does not prove the existence of God or a created universe. The afterlife could simply be another facet of the natural universe. This is called intellectual honesty, saying "I don't know."
Objection: 1. Existence of the universe. The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
You assert that it had a beginning. This is not known, and is one of the gaps I am referring to.
Response: The universe most probably had a beginning
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1297-the-universe-most-probably-had-a-beginning
Arno Penzias, Cosmos, Bios, and Theos:
‘Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the right conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.’
Margenau and Varghese eds, La Salle, IL, Open Court, 1992, p. 83
Mithani, and Vilenkin: Did the universe have a beginning?:
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes. Here we have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning, and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658v1.pdf
NASA:
The Big Bang created all the matter and energy in the Universe.
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/190389main_Cosmic_Elements_Poster_Back.pdf
Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole, therefore, forms a singularity at its center from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is, therefore, finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths. Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded".
Arvin Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. In 2012 Vilenkin showed that models which do not meet this one condition still fail for other reasons to avert the beginning of the universe. Vilenkin concluded, “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal.”[1] “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
A.Vilenkin, cited in “Why physicists can't avoid a creation event,” by Lisa Grossman, New Scientist (January 11, 2012).
The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem is independent of any physical description of that moment. Their theorem implies that even if our universe is just a tiny part of a so-called “multiverse” composed of many universes, the multiverse must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin is blunt about the implications:
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning
(Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).
===========================================================================================================================================================
Objection: The universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. Its implementation depends on the action of an intelligent rational agency.
This is not a logical statement. Yes, the universe obeys laws and rules of mathematics and physics. In no way does this require an intelligent agent to implement those laws. Again, you are making an assertion with no evidence to support it.
3. The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other.
And?
Response: Laws of Physics, where did they come from?
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1336-laws-of-physics-where-did-they-come-from
The physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent and irreducible. There would not be one without the other. Origins make only sense in face of Intelligent Design.
"The naive view implies that the universe suddenly came into existence and found a complete system of physical laws waiting to be obeyed. Actually, it seems more natural to suppose that the physical universe and the laws of physics are interdependent." —*WH. McCrea, "Cosmology after Half a Century," Science, Vol. 160, June 1968, p. 1297.
Paul Davies: The universe obeys mathematical laws; they are like a hidden subtext in nature. Science reveals that there is a coherent scheme of things, but scientists do not necessarily interpret that as evidence for meaning or purpose in the universe.
The only rational explanation is however that God created this coherent scheme of things since there is no other alternative explanation. That's why atheists rather than admit that, prefer to argue of " not knowing " of its cause.
Our very ability to establish the laws of nature depends on their stability.(In fact, the idea of a law of nature implies stability.) Likewise, the laws of nature must remain constant long enough to provide the kind of stability life requires through the building of nested layers of complexity. The properties of the most fundamental units of complexity we know of, quarks, must remain constant in order for them to form larger units, protons and neutrons, which then go into building even larger units, atoms, and so on, all the way to stars, planets, and in some sense, people. The lower levels of complexity provide the structure and carry the information of life. There is still a great deal of mystery about how the various levels relate, but clearly, at each level, structures must remain stable over vast stretches of space and time. 4
And our universe does not merely contain complex structures; it also contains elaborately nested layers of higher and higher complexity. Consider complex carbon atoms, within still more complex sugars and nucleotides, within more complex DNA molecules, within complex nuclei, within complex neurons, within the complex human brain, all of which are integrated in a human body. Such “complexification” would be impossible in both a totally chaotic, unstable universe and an utterly simple, homogeneous universe of, say, hydrogen atoms or quarks.
Of course, although nature’s laws are generally stable, simple, and linear—while allowing the complexity necessary for life—they do take more complicated forms. But they usually do so only in those regions of the universe
far removed from our everyday experiences: general relativistic effects in high-gravity environments, the strong nuclear force inside the atomic nucleus, quantum mechanical interactions among electrons in atoms. And even in these far-flung regions, nature still guides us toward discovery. Even within the more complicated realm of quantum mechanics, for instance, we can describe many interactions with the relatively simple Schrödinger Equation. Eugene Wigner famously spoke of the “unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in natural science”—unreasonable only if one assumes, we might add, that the universe is not underwritten by reason. Wigner was impressed by the simplicity of the mathematics that describes the workings of the universe and our relative ease in discovering them. Philosopher Mark Steiner, in The Applicability of Mathematics as a Philosophical Problem, has updated Wigner’s musings with detailed examples of the deep connections and uncanny predictive power of pure mathematics as applied to the laws of nature
Described by man, Prescribed by God. There is no scientific reason why there should be any laws at all. It would be perfectly logical for there to be chaos instead of order. Therefore the FACT of order itself suggests that somewhere at the bottom of all this there is a Mind at work. This Mind, which is uncaused, can be called 'God.' If someone asked me what's your definition of 'God', I would say 'That which is Uncaused and the source of all that is Caused.' 3
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: Fine-tuning is an argument made by people who don't grasp the vastness of time and space, nor the complexity of biology and evolution. A much stronger argument (and one we actually do see evidence of) is that these conditions were likely, almost inevitably, going to occur somewhere in the universe at some point in time, simply due to the sheer enormity of it and the seemingly incalculable number of possible systems present.
Response: Without fine-tuning of the Big Bang , there would be no Universe at all.
Fine-tuning of the Big Bang
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1866-fine-tuning-of-the-big-bang
The Big Bang was the most precisely planned event in all of history
Professor Stephen Hawking:
'If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the Universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present state.' -
Steven Weinberg Department of Physics, University of Texas
There are now two cosmological constant problems. The old cosmological constant problem is to understand in a natural way why the vacuum energy density ρV is not very much larger. We can reliably calculate some contributions to ρV , like the energy density in fluctuations in the gravitational field at graviton energies nearly up to the Planck scale, which is larger than is observationally allowed by some 120 orders of magnitude. Such terms in ρV can be cancelled by other contributions that we can’t calculate, but the cancellation then has to be accurate to 120 decimal places.
When one calculates, based on known principles of quantum mechanics, the "vacuum energy density" of the universe, focusing on the electromagnetic force, one obtains the incredible result that empty space "weighs" 1,093g per cubic centimetre (cc). The actual average mass density of the universe, 10-28g per cc, differs by 120 orders of magnitude from theory. 5 Physicists, who have fretted over the cosmological constant paradox for years, have noted that calculations such as the above involve only the electromagnetic force, and so perhaps when the contributions of the other known forces are included, all terms will cancel out to exactly zero, as a consequence of some unknown fundamental principle of physics. But these hopes were shattered with the 1998 discovery that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, which implied that the cosmological constant must be slightly positive. This meant that physicists were left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121st digit.
Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10^123 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago. In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation.
Lee Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:
We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.
Max Tegmark:
“How far could you rotate the dark-energy knob before the “Oops!” moment? If rotating it…by a full turn would vary the density across the full range, then the actual knob setting for our Universe is about 10^123 of a turn away from the halfway point. That means that if you want to tune the knob to allow galaxies to form, you have to get the angle by which you rotate it right to 123 decimal places!
That means that the probability that our universe contains galaxies is akin to exactly 1 possibility in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 . Unlikely doesn’t even begin to describe these odds. There are “only” 10^81 atoms in the observable universe, after all. 4
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: Formation of life. Life comes only from life. Abiogenesis has never been demonstrated to be possible despite over half a century of intensive scientific research.
Neither has divine creation. At least abiogenesis has theoretical models based in functional science.
Response: Life comes only from life. Repeatedly proven correct.
Chance of intelligence to set up life:
100% We KNOW by repeated experience that intelligence does elaborate blueprints and constructs complex factories and machines with specific purposes.
Chance of unguided random natural events doing it:
Chance of random chemical reactions to setup amino-acid polypeptide chains to produce functional proteins on early earth external to cellular biosynthesis:
1 in 10^200.000 That's virtually the same as 0%. There are 10^80 atoms in the universe.
Abiogenesis is virtually impossible
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1279-abiogenesis-is-virtually-impossible
No scientific experiment has been able to come even close to synthesize the basic building blocks of life, and reproduce
a self-replicating Cell in the Laboratory through self-assembly and autonomous organization
Observation:
The origin of life depends on biological cells, which perpetuate life upon the complex action of
- factory portals with fully automated security checkpoints and control ( membrane proteins )
- factory compartments ( organelles )
- a library index and fully automated information classification, storage and retrieval program ( chromosomes, and the gene regulatory network )
- molecular computers, hardware ( DNA )
- software, a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint, ( the genetic and over a dozen epigenetic codes )
- information retrieval ( RNA polymerase )
- transmission ( messenger RNA )
- translation ( Ribosome )
- signalling ( hormones )
- complex machines ( proteins )
- taxis ( dynein, kinesin, transport vesicles )
- molecular highways ( tubulins, used by dynein and kinesin proteins for molecular transport to various destinations )
- tagging programs ( each protein has a tag, which is an amino acid sequence ) informing other molecular transport machines where to transport them.
- factory assembly lines ( fatty acid synthase, non-ribosomal peptide synthase )
- error check and repair systems ( exonucleolytic proofreading, strand-directed mismatch repair )
- recycling methods ( endocytic recycling )
- waste grinders and management ( Proteasome Garbage Grinders )
- power generating plants ( mitochondria )
- power turbines ( ATP synthase )
- electric circuits ( the metabolic network )
Biological cells are a veritable micro-miniaturized industrial park full of interlinked and interdependent factories containing millions of exquisitely designed
pieces of intricate molecular machinery. Biological Cells do not resemble factory parks, they ARE an industrial park of various interconnected factories, working in conjunction.
Hypothesis (Prediction):
Complex machines and interconnected factory parks are intelligently designed. Biological cells are intelligently designed. Factories can not self-assemble spontaneously
by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction. The claim can be falsified, once someone can demonstrate that factories
can self-assemble spontaneously by orderly aggregation and sequentially correct manner without external direction.
Experiment:
Since origin of life experiments began, nobody was able to bring up an experiment, replicating the origin of life by natural means.
Eugene Koonin, advisory editorial board of Trends in Genetics, writes in his book: The Logic of Chance:
" The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution, Eugene V. Koonin, page 351:
The origin of life is the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Indeed, the problem is so hard and the current state of
the art seems so frustrating that some researchers prefer to dismiss the entire issue as being outside the scientific domain altogether, on the grounds that unique
events are not conducive to scientific study.
A succession of exceedingly unlikely steps is essential for the origin of life, from the synthesis and accumulation of nucleotides to the origin of translation; through the
multiplication of probabilities, these make the final outcome seem almost like a miracle. The difficulties remain formidable. For all the effort, we do not currently have
coherent and plausible models for the path from simple organic molecules to the first life forms. Most damningly, the powerful mechanisms of biological evolution were
not available for all the stages preceding the emergence of replicator systems. Given all these major difficulties, it appears prudent to seriously consider radical alternatives
for the origin of life. " Scientists do not have even the slightest clue as to how life could have begun through an unguided naturalistic process absent the intervention of a
conscious creative agency. The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading to the re-creation of life; not to mention the spontaneous emergence of life…
is the most humiliating embarrassment to the proponents of naturalism and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it… because it undermines the worldview
of who wants naturalism to be true.
Conclusion:
Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly
improbable, then design is highly probable. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so
a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable, so, by applying Bayesian probability, we can conclude that Life is most probably intelligently designed.
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: Objection: cells are not factories in a literal sense.
Answer: Factory is from latin, and means fabricare, or make. Produce, manufacture. A factory or manufacturing plant is a site, usually consisting of buildings and machinery, or more commonly a complex having several buildings, where, in fully automated factories for example, pre-programmed robots, manufacture goods or operate machines processing one product into another. And that's PRECISELY what cells do. They produce other cells through self-replication, through complex machine processing, computing etc. They produce all organelles, proteins, membranes, parts, they make a copy of themselves. Self-replication is a marvel of engineering. the most advanced method of manufacturing. And fully automated. No external help required. If we could make factories like that, we would be able to create a society where machines do all the work for us, and we would have time only to entertain us, no work, nor money needed anymore..... And if factories could evolve to produce subsequently better, more adapted products, that would add even further complexity, and point to even more requirement of pre-programming to get the feat done.
The Molecular Fabric of Cells BIOTOL, B.C. Currell and R C.E Dam-Mieras (Auth.)
http://libgen.io/search.php?req=The+Molecular+Fabric+of+Cells&lg_topic=libgen&open=0&view=simple&res=25&phrase=1&column=def
The central theme of both of these texts is to consider cells as biological factories. Cells are, indeed, outstanding factories. Each cell type takes in its own set of chemicals and making its own collection of products. The range of products is quite remarkable and encompass chemically simple compounds such as ethanol and carbon dioxide as well as the extremely complex proteins, carbohydrates, lipids, nucleic acids and secondary products.
Membranes represent the walls of the cellular factory. Membranes control what comes into the factory and what leaves. We may view the cytoplasm and its surrounding plasma membrane as being the workshop of the chemical factory. The Golgi apparatus, another membranous structure embedded in the cytoplasm, is also involved in the processing of macromolecules made within the cell. Its special properties are for modifying cell products so that they can be exported from the cell. In our chemical factory, they are the packaging and exporting department. Enzymes are indeed rather like the workers in a large complex industrial process. Each is designed to carry out a specific task in a specific area of the factory.
To understand how a factory operates requires knowledge of the tools and equipment available within the factory and how these tools are organized. We might anticipate that our biological factories will be comprised of structural and functional elements.
Plant Cells as Chemical Factories: Control and Recovery of Valuable Products
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-017-0641-4_14
Microbial cell factory is an approach to bioengineering which considers microbial cells as a production facility in which the optimization process largely depends on metabolic engineering
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_cell_factory
Microbial Cell Factories is an open access peer-reviewed journal that covers any topic related to the development, use and investigation of microbial cells as producers of recombinant proteins and natural products
https://microbialcellfactories.biomedcentral.com/
Fine Tuning our Cellular Factories: Sirtuins in Mitochondrial Biology
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111451/
Cells As Molecular Factories
Eukaryotic cells are molecular factories in two senses: cells produce molecules and cells are made up of molecules.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/exchange/bioactivities/cellmolecular
Michael Denton: Evolution: A Theory In Crisis:
The cell is a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world.
Ribosome: Lessons of a molecular factory construction
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S0026893314040116
Nucleolus: the ribosome factory
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18712681
Ribosome: The cell city's factories
http://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/natural-history/ribosome-the-cell-citys-factories
In the cell, there are production lines, in this case, manufacturing new proteins of many different sorts. New goods and products are continually being manufactured from raw materials. In cities this takes place in workshops and factories. Raw materials are transformed, usually in a sequence of steps on a production line, into finished products. The process is governed by a clear set of instructions or specifications. In some cases the final products are for immediate or local use, in others they are packaged for export.
The Cell's Protein Factory in Action
What looks like a jumble of rubber bands and twisty ties is the ribosome, the cellular protein factory.
https://www.livescience.com/41863-ribosomes-protein-factory-nigms.html
Chloroplasts are the microscopic factories on which all life on Earth is based.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-chloroplast-For-what-it-is-used
Visualization of the active expression site locus by tagging with green fluorescent protein shows that it is specifically located at this unique pol I transcriptional factory.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v414/n6865/full/414759a.html
There are millions of protein factories in every cell. Surprise, they’re not all the same
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/there-are-millions-protein-factories-every-cell-surprise-they-re-not-all-same
Rough ER is also a membrane factory for the cell; it grows in place by adding membrane proteins and phospholipids to its own membrane.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Cell_Biology/Print_version
Endoplasmic reticulum: Scientists image 'parking garage' helix structure in protein-making factory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130718130617.htm
Theoretical biologists at Los Alamos National Laboratory have used a New Mexico supercomputer to aid an international research team in untangling another mystery related to ribosomes -- those enigmatic jumbles of molecules that are the protein factories of living cells.
https://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-ratchet-cellular-protein-factory.html
The molecular factory that translates the information from RNA to proteins is called the "ribosome"
https://phys.org/news/2014-08-key-worker-protein-synthesis-factory.html
Quality control in the endoplasmic reticulum protein factory
The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is a factory where secretory proteins are manufactured, and where stringent quality-control systems ensure that only correctly folded proteins are sent to their final destinations. The changing needs of the ER factory are monitored by integrated signalling pathways that constantly adjust the levels of folding assistants.
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1038/nature02262
The cell is a mind-bogglingly complex and intricate marvel of nano-technology. Every one of the trillions of cells in your body is not “like” an automated nano-factory. It is an automated nano-factory.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/pardon-me-if-i-am-not-impressed-dr-miller/
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: 7. A minimal Cell requires 560 proteins with an average size of 400 amino acids, which totals 224.000 amino acids. That requires to select 1 out of 40^224.000!
Okay...and? This is a statement, not evidence of anything except what a cell requires.
Response: Leading scientists have calculated that the statistical probability of the fine-tuning of the universe, and life emerging by random unguided events, is far beyond the limit of Borel's law, which is in the order of 1 in 10^50.
This probability is hard to imagine but an illustration may help. Imagine covering the whole of the USA with small coins, edge to edge. Now imagine piling other coins on each of these millions of coins. Now imagine continuing to pile coins on each coin until reaching the moon about 400,000 km away! If you were told that within this vast mountain of coins there was one coin different to all the others. The statistical chance of finding that one coin is about 1 in 10^50. In other words, the evidence that our universe is designed is overwhelming!
A statistical impossibility is a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a rational, reasonable argument. If the probability of an event is an infinitesimally small, then, for all practical purposes, the probability is equal to zero.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Statistical_impossibility
The Criterion : The "Cosmic Limit" Law of Chance
To arrive at a statistical "proof," we need a reasonable criterion to judge it by :
As just a starting point, consider that many statisticians consider that any occurrence with a chance of happening that is less than one chance out of 10^50, is an occurrence with such a slim a probability that is, in general, statistically considered to be zero. (10^50 is the number 1 with 50 zeros after it, and it is spoken: "10 to the 50th power"). This appraisal seems fairly reasonable, when you consider that 10^50 is about the number of atoms which make up the planet earth. --So, overcoming one chance out of 10^50 is like marking one specific atom out of the earth, and mixing it in completely, and then someone makes one blind, random selection, which turns out to be that specific marked atom. Most mathematicians and scientists have accepted this statistical standard for many purposes.
http://worldview3.50webs.com/mathproofcreat.html
LES PROBABILITIES DINOMBRABLES ET LEURS APPLICATIONS ARITHMtTIOUES.
Par M. EmiIe BoreI (Paris) 8 novembre 1908
http://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03019651
Strong law of large numbers
https://www.encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/Strong_law_of_large_numbers
And to mention: 1. The synthesis of proteins and nucleic acids from small molecule precursors represents one of the most difficult challenges to the model of pre-biological ( chemical) evolution.
2. The formation of amide bonds without the assistance of enzymes poses a major challenge for theories of the orgin of life. 2
3. The best one can hope for from such a scenario is a racemic polymer of proteinous and non-proteinous amino acids with no relevance to living systems.
4. Polymerization is a reaction in which water is a product. Thus it will only be favoured in the absence of water. The presence of precursors in an ocean of water favours depolymerization of any molecules that might be formed.
5. Even if there were billions of simultaneous trials as the billions of building block molecules interacted in the oceans, or on the thousands of kilometers of shorelines that could provide catalytic surfaces or templates, even if, as is claimed, there was no oxygen in the prebiotic earth, then there would be no protection from UV light, which would destroy and disintegrate prebiotic organic compounds. Secondly, even if there would be a sequence, producing a functional folding protein, by itself, if not inserted in a functional way in the cell, it would absolutely no function. It would just lay around, and then soon disintegrate. Furthermore, in modern cells proteins are tagged and transported on molecular highways to their precise destination, where they are utilized. Obviously, all this was not extant on the early earth.
6. To form a chain, it is necessary to react bifunctional monomers, that is, molecules with two functional groups so they combine with two others. If a unifunctional monomer (with only one functional group) reacts with the end of the chain, the chain can grow no further at this end. If only a small fraction of unifunctional molecules were present, long polymers could not form. But all ‘prebiotic simulation’ experiments produce at least three times more unifunctional molecules than bifunctional molecules.
7. in modern organisms, linking amino acids and bond one amino acid to the next to build a protein is a highly sophisticated and complex process. Each amino acid is activated to overcome an energy barrier that naturally prevents the linking up of adjacent amino acids in solution, and the energy for this process comes from ATP. Then, aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase (aaRS) enzymes bond each amino acid, in two steps, to the correct tRNA.” The tRNA adaptors are detachable once the amino acid has been joined to the end of the growing protein. How could/would the transition of non-enzymatic protein elongation and formation have occurred from when this machinery was non-extant on early earth, to the process promoted by the Cell machinery? The hugeness of this gap cannot be overstated.
[size=12]==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: [/size] 8.Irreducible complexity. Biological cells require a minimal number of parts, which have no use by themselves, and would never accumulate on a prebiotic earth
Why would they never accumulate on a prebiotic Earth, and how can you know this? This one I genuinely don't know.
Response: The hydrothermal-vent hypothesis, and why it fails
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1394-the-hydrothermal-vent-theory-and-why-it-fails
The high concentrations of water on the early Earth would have diluted reactants, diffused away products, AND inhibited condensation reactions. The cytoplasm of living cells contains essential minerals of potassium, zinc, manganese and phosphate ions. If cells manifested naturally, these minerals would need to be present nearby. But marine environments do not have widespread concentrations of these minerals (Switek). Thus, it is clear, life could not have formed in the ocean. Careful experiments done in an aqueous solution with very high concentrations of amino acids demonstrate the impossibility of significant polymerization in this environment.
==============================================================================================================================================
Objection: The appearance of design. The universe and biological systems appear designed. Therefore, most probably, they are designed.
Utter nonsense. This is an entirely subjective statement. To me, the universe and biological systems appear to be the result of natural processes. Therefore, most probably, they are not designed. See how easy that is?
Response: The (past) action or signature of an intelligent designer can be detected when we see :
- an object in nature very similar to human-made things
- something made based on mathematical principles
- systems and networks functioning based on logic gates
- something purposefully made for specific goals
- specified complexity, the instructional blueprint or a codified message
- irreducible complex and interdependent systems or artefacts composed of several interlocked, well-matched parts contributing to a higher end of a complex system that would be useful only in the completion of that much larger system.
- order or orderly patterns
- hierarchically arranged systems of parts
- intelligence can create artefacts which use might be employed in different systems ( a wheel is used in cars and airplanes )
- Fine-tuning
Which of the following is better explained by design, rather than non-design?
Probability theory is the logic of science, dingdong. You do not need to prove everything absolutely for it to make sense within reason. What you need is a tendency for it to
be true statistically. That means evidence of it working repeatedly with low error.
Design can be tested using scientific logic. How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so
we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable. Thus, evidence against non-design (against production of a feature by
undirected natural process) is evidence for design. And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable
empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.
Upon applying above logic, how is the following better explained, by design, or non-design ?
- Components of a complex system that are only useful in the completion of a much larger system and their orderly aggregation in a sequentially correct manner.
- Intermediate sub-products which have by its own no use of any sort unless they are correctly assembled in a larger system.
- Instructional complex information which is required for to make these sub-products and parts, to mount them correctly in the right order and at the right place,
and interconnected correctly in a larger system.
- The making of computer hardware, and highly efficient information storage devices.
- Creating software, based on a language using signs and codes like the alphabet, an instructional blueprint.
- Information retrieval, transmission, signalling, and translation
- The make of machine parts with highly specific structures, which permit to form the aggregation into complex machines, production line complexes, autonomous robots
with error check functions and repair mechanisms, electronic circuit - like networks, energy production factories, power generating plants, energy turbines, recycle
mechanisms and methods, waste grinders and management, organized waste disposal mechanisms, and self distruction when needed to reach a higher end, and veritable
micro-miniaturized factories where all before-metioned systems and parts are required in order for that factory to be self- replicating, and being functional.
- Establishment of advanced communication systems. Signal relay stations. Signal without recognition is meaningless. Communication implies a signaling convention
(a “coming together” or agreement in advance) that a given signal means or represents something: e.g., that S-O-S means “Send Help!” A transmitter and receiver
system made of physical materials, with a functional purpose, performing an algorithm that is not itself a product of the materials or the blind forces acting on them,
acting as information processing system ( the interaction of a software program and the hardware )
- Selecting the most optimal and efficient code information system and ability to minimize the effects of errors.
- A system which uses a cipher, translating instructions through one language, which contains Statistics, Syntax, Semantics, Pragmatics, and Apobetics, and assign the
code of one system to the code of another system.
- The make of complicated, fast high-performance production systems, and technology with high robustness, flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness, and
quality-management techniques.
- The setup of 1,000–1,500 manufacturing proceedings in parallel by a series of operations and flow connections to reach a common end-goal, the most complex
industry-like production networks known.
- The implementation of a product making system, only in response to actual demand, not in anticipation of forecast demand, thus preventing overproduction.
- Creating machines, production lines and factories that are more complex than man-made things of the sort.
- The organization of software exhibiting logical functional layers - regulatory mechanisms - and control networks and systems.
- Error check and detection, inspection processes, quality assurance procedures, information error proofreading and repair mechanisms.
- Foolproofing, applying the key-lock principle to guarantee a proper fit between product and machine.
- Complex production lines which depend on precise optimization and fine-tuning.
- Create complex systems which are able to adapt to variating conditions.
Last edited by Admin on Tue May 21, 2019 11:14 am; edited 4 times in total
