Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Designer enzymes

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    His prediction is that we humans can design better enzymes than evolution produced. How, precisely, would the failure of this be evidence for design?
    Originally posted by shunyadragon
    It is only evidence for whether his particular prediction fails or succeeds, and nothing else.
    If humans are unable to improve substantially on bumbling nature, then we have reason to believe that nature did not stumble around and find its enzymes, i.e. something outside of nature produced them.

    Blessings,
    Lee
    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
      If humans are unable to improve substantially on bumbling nature, then we have reason to believe that nature did not stumble around and find its enzymes, i.e. something outside of nature produced them.

      Blessings,
      Lee
      You are making big IF assumptions here that are not related to the research cited. You cannot make the assumption that science cannot produce 'designer enzymes at best that your usual ploy of 'arguing from ignorance' to justify your agenda instead of making an honest effort to understand Dr. Baker's research. Citing scientists 'out of context' is another of your unethical misuse of science to justify your agenda.

      I also described the issue of you unethically misrepresenting Dr. Baker's statement concerning 'bumbling nature,' and you failed to respond. which in reality has no meaningful context to his research.

      Again and again and again there is no relationship between Dr. Baker's research concerning 'designer enzymes' and the natural evolution of enzymes. TheLurch made that clear and you failed to respond to his detailed description.
      Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
      Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
      But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

      go with the flow the river knows . . .

      Frank

      I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        If humans are unable to improve substantially on bumbling nature, then we have reason to believe that nature did not stumble around and find its enzymes, i.e. something outside of nature produced them.
        Maybe you've got reason to believe that, but scientists don't. Given that we have multiple examples of nature creating, repurposing, and optimizing enzymes through evolution.

        I also find it highly amusing that for years, ID backers were saying "if we can design enzymes, it's evidence in favor of them having originally been designed." Now, suddenly, you're arguing the exact opposite.
        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          If humans are unable to improve substantially on bumbling nature, then we have reason to believe that nature did not stumble around and find its enzymes, i.e. something outside of nature produced them.
          The more i think about this, the more i'm stunned by the lack of logic in this argument. There's two ways to highlight this:

          We have no evidence of design, and plenty of evidence for evolution. In a hypothetical, we consider design failing to improve significantly on evolution in most cases. Lee would like to use a failure to conclude that a process must have occurred.

          The other way to view this is that Lee is essentially arguing that if nature has near-optimal solutions, it's evidence for design — which indicates that he thinks the only way to arrive at a near-optimal solution is through design. Which is something there's no evidence for, and evidence against (see, for example, the success of evolutionary algorithms outside of biology).

          The only conclusion that i reach is that Lee will twist anything at all in order to fit his preconceived notion that things must be designed. He's certainly not following evidence.
          "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
            Lee is essentially arguing that if nature has near-optimal solutions, it's evidence for design — which indicates that he thinks the only way to arrive at a near-optimal solution is through design. Which is something there's no evidence for, and evidence against (see, for example, the success of evolutionary algorithms outside of biology).
            Well, what I'm saying is a bit different, Baker is confident that human intelligence can exceed what bumbling nature can do. I would agree with him, and if it turns out that evolution is near-optimal, then we have to consider that more than bumbling nature is at work. And evolutionary algorithms have their place, just as evolution has what it can do, but designing enzymes much better than naturally-occurring enzymes, I would say, is not part of what evolution can do.

            Blessings,
            Lee
            "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              You are making big IF assumptions here that are not related to the research cited.
              I'm quoting Baker, and accurately, I think. How is it that I've misrepresented what he said?

              Again and again and again there is no relationship between Dr. Baker's research concerning 'designer enzymes' and the natural evolution of enzymes. TheLurch made that clear and you failed to respond to his detailed description.
              I've responded to you all, and Baker is attempting to out-do nature. We shall see...

              Blessings,
              Lee
              "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                If it turns out that evolution is near-optimal, then we have to consider that more than bumbling nature is at work.
                Why? What compels us to consider that? Why can't evolution produce near optimal results?

                And loose the "bumbling" please. It adds nothing to the discussion.
                "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                  I'm quoting Baker, and accurately, I think. How is it that I've misrepresented what he said?
                  Post #9

                  The problem with the quote from Dr. Baker, when taken into context of the 'whole' article is that it is a frivolous rhetorical devise statement, and when Marcos Eberlin uses the quote he takes it seriously how nature actually works from the scientific perspective.

                  If you read the whole article by Dr. Baker you will find the article is definite scientific perspective of evolution, and than read Marcos Eberlin his work is an 'Intelligent Design' argument in total contradiction of the science of Dr. Baker.


                  Context, context and context.

                  I've responded to you all, and Baker is attempting to out-do nature. We shall see...

                  Blessings,
                  Lee
                  No. Dr. Baker's research had nothing to with how evolution takes place in nature. If you believe so please cite specifically in the scientific description where Dr. Baker states he specifically he is trying beat nature at the game of evolution. The development of 'designer enzymes' has nothing to do with the natural evolution of enzymes as The Lurch described and you choose to ignore.

                  As TheLurch stated, drop the "bumbling," because it is meaningless concerning Dr. Baker's research.
                  Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-18-2019, 06:54 PM.
                  Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                  Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                  But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                  go with the flow the river knows . . .

                  Frank

                  I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                    Why? What compels us to consider that? Why can't evolution produce near optimal results?
                    It's possible to get near-optimal results, it's just unlikely, implies Baker.

                    And loose the "bumbling" please. It adds nothing to the discussion.
                    Well, that's kind of the essence of the opening post! That nature has no insight for a goal, and so humans with insight should be able to do much better.

                    Blessings,
                    Lee
                    "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Post #9

                      The problem with the quote from Dr. Baker, when taken into context of the 'whole' article is that it is a frivolous rhetorical devise statement, and when Marcos Eberlin uses the quote he takes it seriously how nature actually works from the scientific perspective.

                      If you read the whole article by Dr. Baker you will find the article is definite scientific perspective of evolution, and than read Marcos Eberlin his work is an 'Intelligent Design' argument in total contradiction of the science of Dr. Baker.
                      But I think Baker is quite serious in his claim to be able to do better than nature. Eberlin is then saying that this would be a good test of design, if we are unable to substantially do better.

                      No. Dr. Baker's research had nothing to with how evolution takes place in nature.
                      Agreed.

                      The development of 'designer enzymes' has nothing to do with the natural evolution of enzymes as The Lurch described and you choose to ignore.
                      I'm not ignoring this, the question is whether humans can do substantially better than evolution.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        It's possible to get near-optimal results, it's just unlikely, implies Baker.
                        "One guy causally mentioned an opinion" is not a scientific argument.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        Well, that's kind of the essence of the opening post! That nature has no insight for a goal, and so humans with insight should be able to do much better.
                        I don't know about you, but i'd take a process that has billions of years and solves multiple problems at once over human insight any day. Plus there's the whole "we know evolution happens" thing, which is generally considered a positive thing in science.

                        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                        But I think Baker is quite serious in his claim to be able to do better than nature. Eberlin is then saying that this would be a good test of design, if we are unable to substantially do better.
                        So, how do you explain the contrast between this and the previous claims of ID supporters, who argued that a successful human design would show that intelligent design is possible, and therefore supports ID?
                        "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                          "One guy causally mentioned an opinion" is not a scientific argument.
                          No, but he does seem confident that humans can do better than evolution.

                          I don't know about you, but i'd take a process that has billions of years and solves multiple problems at once over human insight any day.
                          I would reply that evolutionary algorithms have their place, but they are not the be-all and end-all of algorithms.

                          So, how do you explain the contrast between this and the previous claims of ID supporters, who argued that a successful human design would show that intelligent design is possible, and therefore supports ID?
                          I would agree that successful human designs support the concept of ID, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.

                          Blessings,
                          Lee
                          "What I pray of you is, to keep your eye upon Him, for that is everything. Do you say, 'How am I to keep my eye on Him?' I reply, keep your eye off everything else, and you will soon see Him. All depends on the eye of faith being kept on Him. How simple it is!" (J.B. Stoney)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            No, but he does seem confident that humans can do better than evolution.
                            So, you admit you're not making a scientific argument. Maybe this thread was misplaced in Nat Sci then.

                            And, if the argument is just some creationist's gloss on an opinion from one scientist, what value does it actually have?

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            I would reply that evolutionary algorithms have their place, but they are not the be-all and end-all of algorithms.
                            I'm not referring to evolutionary algorithms, as the "billions of years" would have made obvious if you paid any attention to anyone other than your creationist sources. I'm referring to actual evolution.


                            And with that, I think it's time to stop and take a moment to appreciate the staggering dishonesty that's on display here. In the same thread, we have both:

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            I would agree that successful human designs support the concept of ID, but maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.
                            and
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            If it turns out that evolution is near-optimal, then we have to consider that more than bumbling nature is at work.
                            Both failure of human design and success of human design are evidence of ID! Lee can't lose!

                            I mean, it has been obvious from the start that Lee will interpret anything as evidence of ID, but it's still useful to have it laid out so clearly, i suppose.

                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.
                            I think you should put more time into understanding your own arguments.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                              No, but he does seem confident that humans can do better than evolution.
                              No he does not. I asked before and still waiting for you to cite the the scientific reference where Dr. Baker is actually trying to do better than 'evolution.' Dr. Baker's research were not with the purpose of replicating evolution and doing better.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                                No, but he does seem confident that humans can do better than evolution.

                                Again . . .

                                The problem with the quote from Dr. Baker, when taken into context of the 'whole' article is that it is a frivolous rhetorical devise statement, and when Marcos Eberlin uses the quote he takes it seriously how nature actually works from the scientific perspective.

                                If you read the whole article by Dr. Baker you will find the article is definite scientific perspective of evolution, and than read Marcos Eberlin his work is an 'Intelligent Design' argument in total contradiction of the science of Dr. Baker.

                                Context, context and context.

                                No. Dr. Baker's research had nothing to with how evolution takes place in nature. If you believe so please cite specifically in the scientific description where Dr. Baker states he specifically he is trying beat nature at the game of evolution. The development of 'designer enzymes' has nothing to do with the natural evolution of enzymes as The Lurch described and you choose to ignore.

                                As TheLurch stated, drop the "bumbling," because it is meaningless concerning Dr. Baker's research.
                                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                                Frank

                                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X