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

  • #31
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Both failure of human design and success of human design are evidence of ID!
    Successful design would show design by analogy, and failure to exceed evolution's purported results would be evidence that these results are designed. This is not "A and not A proves design".

    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      No. Dr. Baker's research had nothing to with how evolution takes place in nature.
      Agreed.

      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
        Agreed.

        Blessings,
        Lee
        Than you agree that Dr.Baker did not want exceed nature.
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
          Successful design would show design by analogy,
          No, simply demonstrates that humans can use organic chemistry to design chemistry like nylon.


          . . . and failure to exceed evolution's purported results would be evidence that these results are designed. This is not "A and not A proves design".

          Blessings,
          Lee
          The only way to falsify a hypothesis to support ID is to demonstrate evolution cannot take place naturally.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
            Successful design would show design by analogy,...
            So if they do succeed in improving on evolved structures, that shows design.
            ... and failure to exceed evolution's purported results would be evidence that these results are designed.
            So if they do not succeed in improving on evolved structures, that shows design.
            This is not "A and not A proves design".
            Yes it is.
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

            seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
              Successful design would show design by analogy, and failure to exceed evolution's purported results would be evidence that these results are designed. This is not "A and not A proves design".
              Well, let's reason this out. Here are your prepositions:

              A = successful design supports ID by analogy.
              B = failure to exceed nature implies design was needed.

              Possible scenarios:

              Design fails entirely. This would fall through the cracks and support evolution, except for the fact that we've already done some minor designing successfully, so it's a failed scenario at the time you're making your propositions.
              Design succeeds, but fails to exceed nature. You claim design is supported via both A and B.
              Design succeeds, and exceeds nature. You claim design is supported via A.

              So, you've set it up so that the only scenario that where design can fail is the only scenario that we already know is false. Good show!
              "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                Well, let's reason this out. Here are your prepositions:

                A = successful design supports ID by analogy.
                B = failure to exceed nature implies design was needed.

                Possible scenarios:

                Design fails entirely. This would fall through the cracks and support evolution, except for the fact that we've already done some minor designing successfully, so it's a failed scenario at the time you're making your propositions.
                Design succeeds, but fails to exceed nature. You claim design is supported via both A and B.
                Design succeeds, and exceeds nature. You claim design is supported via A.

                So, you've set it up so that the only scenario that where design can fail is the only scenario that we already know is false. Good show!
                That was one of the most beautiful examples of syllogisms I have ever seen to this day.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                  Well, let's reason this out. Here are your prepositions:

                  A = successful design supports ID by analogy.
                  B = failure to exceed nature implies design was needed.

                  Possible scenarios:

                  Design fails entirely. This would fall through the cracks and support evolution, except for the fact that we've already done some minor designing successfully, so it's a failed scenario at the time you're making your propositions.
                  Design succeeds, but fails to exceed nature. You claim design is supported via both A and B.
                  Design succeeds, and exceeds nature. You claim design is supported via A.

                  So, you've set it up so that the only scenario that where design can fail is the only scenario that we already know is false. Good show!
                  Only I claim that A and B provide evidence for design, not that they prove design. And if human design significantly exceeds nature, then that would be evidence for evolution, more that evidence for design.

                  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


                  • #39
                    Not in the least. Whether attempts to duplicate evolution fail or succeed, the outcomes are neutral with regard to demonstration of ID. However, similar circumstances can produce similar outcomes for the same species, so evidence exists to support the idea that evolution might be governed by laws, rather than by blind chance.
                    1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
                    .
                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
                    Scripture before Tradition:
                    but that won't prevent others from
                    taking it upon themselves to deprive you
                    of the right to call yourself Christian.

                    ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                      Only I claim that A and B provide evidence for design,
                      No they do not.

                      . . . not that they prove design.
                      Again and again . . . science doe snot prove anything.

                      And if human design significantly exceeds nature, then that would be evidence for evolution, more that evidence for design.

                      Blessings,
                      Lee
                      Scientists do not attempt human design to exceed exceed nature. No that would not be evidence for natural evolution, nor ID.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                        Not in the least. Whether attempts to duplicate evolution fail or succeed, the outcomes are neutral with regard to demonstration of ID.
                        Originally posted by shunyadragon
                        Scientists do not attempt human design to exceed exceed nature. No that would not be evidence for natural evolution, nor ID.
                        Well, why so? If an evolutionist is confident that human design can do much better than evolution, and human design fails to do much better, then that would indicate that enzymes etc. are the results of a purposeful process, like the best humans could do.

                        Originally posted by tabibito
                        However, similar circumstances can produce similar outcomes for the same species, so evidence exists to support the idea that evolution might be governed by laws, rather than by blind chance.
                        Well, what laws would those be?

                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                          Well, why so? If an evolutionist is confident that human design can do much better than evolution, . . .
                          Scientists and, ah evolutionists (?) are not trying to do anything better than evolution, because evolution is a natural process in the history of life.Scientists like Dr. Baker are using scientific methods and organic chemistry of make designer enzymes for commercial purposes. Humans for thousands of years have practiced selective breeding of animals and plants to produce better animals and plants for their use. This actually simulated natural processes, but not evolution. In some ways humans for millennia have been evolutionists.

                          Scientist study the objective verifiable evidence research evolution as Natural Processes like natural selection.


                          . . . and human design fails to do much better, then that would indicate that enzymes etc. are the results of a purposeful process, like the best humans could do.
                          The purposeful process of scientists like Dr. Baker is the commercial or industrial use of enzymes. Actually nothing new. They have been doing it for many years, Designer enzymes are already in the market. Absolutely nothing to do with the evolution involving enzymes.

                          Source: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080319160050.htm



                          'Designer Enzymes' Created By Chemists Have Defense And Medical ...

                          Mar 20, 2008 - Chemists have created "designer enzymes" -- a major milestone in computational chemistry and protein engineering. Designer enzymes will have applications for biological warfare defense by deactivating pathogenic biological agents, and for creating more effective medications.

                          © Copyright Original Source



                          Well, what laws would those be?
                          Laws of Nature.
                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-30-2019, 07:39 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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by lee_merrill View Post
                            Well, why so? If an evolutionist is confident that human design can do much better than evolution, and human design fails to do much better, then that would indicate that enzymes etc. are the results of a purposeful process, like the best humans could do.
                            Because you're you, i'm not sure you can fully appreciate just how ludicrous the "logic" there comes across to everyone else.

                            It fails on many, many levels. For one, it arbitrarily rejects the possibility that evolution could produce better enzymes than human design, despite the fact that (as discussed in my earlier post), evolution solves a number of problems that humans struggle with. It rejects it purely on an unjustified extrapolation of some casual speculation from a single scientist. And it turns logic on its head - should humans fail to design something effective, the obvious conclusion would be "design doesn't seem to be that effective." Instead, it says "if human design fails, we should believe in magic!", namely an unnamed entity or entities that do design much better than us.

                            That last bit - extremely effective designer(s) - requires piling a lock of evidence on top of a lack of evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of any designers. Then, you want to posit said nonexistent designers were involved in the origin of life on Earth, something for which there is also no evidence.

                            As far as i can tell, the only way to make a conclusion less logically justified is to start with a false premise.


                            EDIT: expanded something to make the logical deficiencies more clear.
                            Last edited by TheLurch; 07-01-2019, 11:14 AM.
                            "Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Scientists and, ah evolutionists (?) are not trying to do anything better than evolution...
                              Sure they are, and why not?

                              The purposeful process of scientists like Dr. Baker is the commercial or industrial use of enzymes. Actually nothing new. They have been doing it for many years, Designer enzymes are already in the market.
                              Right, they're trying to do the best they can, which might be better than undirected evolution can produce.

                              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


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
                                For one, it arbitrarily rejects the possibility that evolution could produce better enzymes than human design, despite the fact that (as discussed in my earlier post), evolution solves a number of problems that humans struggle with.
                                So far, evolution and human design seem to be on a par. Assuming evolution did generate enzymes.

                                It rejects it purely on an unjustified extrapolation of some casual speculation from a single scientist.
                                Well, we'll see if that scientist is right! And I think the extrapolation is entirely justified.

                                And it turns logic on its head - should humans fail to design something effective, the obvious conclusion would be "design doesn't seem to be that effective." Instead, it says "if human design fails, we should believe in magic!", namely an unnamed entity or entities that do design much better than us.
                                And an unknown designer that does better than we can would not be magic.

                                That last bit - extremely effective designer(s) - requires piling a lock of evidence on top of a lack of evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of any designers. Then, you want to posit said nonexistent designers were involved in the origin of life on Earth, something for which there is also no evidence.
                                Well, there is evidence for both, in the latter case, in the origin of the interactome.

                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 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
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X