Response nr1

Where shall i start...

The ET Hypothesis

1- there might be digital, semantic, etc codes. But the GENETIC code is unique in its dimensional properties. The genetic code is neither semantic, digital, or whatever. It is a group of molecules that when organized in X or Y manner can translate into other proteins. end of.

2- read what you post... "ET"? seriously...between you writing elfs or extraterrestrial life the validatity of the claim remains exactly the same... methaphysical claim, hence it is the product of purely magic thinking.

3- the "truth" is when you present evidence for an "ET", until then saying gods, et or whatever baseless unproven "entity" means the same: fantasy claim.

4- i see no evidence of intelligent designed proteins, except in a lab by modern science. Neverthless random chance would still act upon any kind of future "designed" dna. Random interactions with your "design" would screw any kind of prediction that you would try to make for the rest of your generations.

Tools Of The Intelligent Designer

The genetic code has exceptions, there are different nucleotides and ultrastructures possible for a DNA or RNA molecule all around us and there is a growing science of epigenetics proving to us that what surrounds the DNA is as much important as the DNA itself.

The fact that we KNOW that these structures can change and that there are different nucelotides that can RANDOMLY enter the code screws any kind of "design", or intelligent design.

saying that the genetic code is evidence for an ID is as saying that hydrogen is example of design... lol

"darwinian evolution" only appears after the FIRST form appears, so i don't even know where is this "darwinian" model being refuted... if you failed to mention what are the tools for that "directed evolution"...you just mentioned a model of "intelligent design" of a first form.

The Case Of Nylonase

The irrationality of your thinking process is astonishing....

How can a trait that DIDN'T exist before, suddently is claimed by you as "it was there all along". No it wasn't.

The trait DID NOT exist prior to the RANDOM unintelligent mutation that suddently introduced a NEW trait in the bacteria.

Example:

OUSE

doesn't tell you anything...

but if you put an M, you get MOUSE

but if you put an H, you get HOUSE

a "simple" point mutation does create NEW "meanings" to what WASN'T there before.

a "merely" one mutation, random and unintelligent destroy all of your ID arguements.

Because WE ARE looking into a NOVEL function. ffs... the ability WASN'T there before.

if ID was over more than 2000000 years ago... (let's say the truth: more than a billion years ago) since then we have Evolution.

The Known, The Unknown, And The Known Again

Yes you are presenting arguements from ignorance and yes you are not presenting a mechanism.

The origin of the "first" protein structures is explained by Abiogenesis, not evolution. Since abiogenesis, yes, ALL protein NEW structures are the result of a "darwinian" model.

The Nylon eating bacteria IS an example of "highly integrated protein structures and functions" (whatever that means...)

If the ID "camp" think they can present a model based on the scientific method, i am more than curious to read the method they want to use in order to take a picture of those ETs working in a lab billions of years ago...

"All observations in the physical world demonstrates that complex biocatalytic functions are only a derivative of intelligence rather than undirected processes."

uhm.... let me see if i can pinpoint the logical falacies:

1- "all observations demonstrates"...name me 10 published demonstrations of such? none? thought so

2- "complex biocatalytic" - care to define a list of those "complex" functions? you know...the word "complex" is merely subjective.

3- "only a derivative of intelligence"- chemical reactions don't need an intelligence to make them occur, just the molecules interacting with each other.

4- "undirected process"- quick question: is the event: "raining" directed?

I am yet to see any kind of "directed evolution". You speak as if in the middle of 1000 individuals in a g0 all of them would repoduce with success the g1 individuals....

Let's be serious... you cannot explain any kind of "ID directed" with you model. But we do SEE a natural world acting unintelligently upon life.

Now going for the numbers:

1- there is no goal. If there was, RANDOM mutations are here to screw any kind of "intended" offspring.

2- It is a known fact that even in the middle of a closed controled system in breeding farms, a "black sheep" might always appear. Why? because even though you do try to control ALL variables. You can't control what happens at a close to atomic interaction level, where an extra nanometer to the side, will make one of the nucleotides slide and not pair.

Occam's razor can apply to all things, some say. One important rule in any kind of claim inside a scientific method is that all prepositions must have an empirical validity, meaning: they must be real. "rational design" is merely an invalidated magic thinking idea... hence, not real.

Plus the mere fact that it can't explain anything at all. For example: Why do we see those "black sheeps"?

"There IS a mechanism for the design of proteins and ezymes, and one that is entirely testable, repeatable, and observable."

Where?

All i read is a magic idea of yours on how a "first" protein might have arisen...not how it evolved in what we see today.

I think that concept of a designer is the same of a creator or a god. You can even replace the word "designer" with santa claus or "aliens" (can it be the Vulcans? :P).....

So, as one can see, we are left with nothing at all... i end up not having a clue how the heck a "directed evolution from some rational designer" could have caused a single nucleotide to change into another.... While "darwinism" states: Random mutations introduces variety. Hence that random mutation explains how a new protein that WASN'T there before suddently appears.

Amino Acids

(1) how so? care to tell me where in all of your biochemistry training did you lack an answer from a darwinian model?

(2) ID tells you nothing plausible. That's why LM keeps not telling all of us what mechanism are those.

(3) hence its all a bunch of lies. ID can't tell me why there are "black sheeps". while random mutations as explained in the evolutionary model, can.

I am starting to wonder why do you need people to ask you to explain your "ID mechanisms"....

"to demonstrate one type of chemical reaction which spontaneously produces only one entantiomer"

are you serious? you do know what is Enantio Convergent synthesis, right?

The thing about homochirality and life is that in the "start" both chiralities existed and one competed against the other, by mere chance one won over the other. again: ungodly, unintelligent mere chance. Personaly i doubt it in this case. I would argue that that first "pond scum" had more of one chirality than the other, which provided an advantage for one side.

The Genetic Code

ID can't explain me the origin of the genetic code. Saying that "ET did it" is as valid as saying "god did it"... nevertheless both are useless to explain me the emergence of the genetic code. Abiogenesis explains the origin of the genetic code, not "Darwinism".

DNA is, if you look at it, by microscope or any other method were you can make a 3d representation of its structure, first: a molecular structure. It's not a written ACTG in a black piece of paper. It is a real form of matter, a molecule.

It is as much a language as a crytal structure made out of NaCl...

- I'll also present a claim that you will not be able to present a reasonable counter argumentation ( i hope you do, i always like to make fun of people that try to apply Zipf law to biology): DNA is not a "language".

Why? because when you mix iron with molecular oxygen the result is not the result of some sort of "language". It is matter interacting with matter.

Matter defines its laws of interactions, this process is unintelligent and natural. There is no language at all within a strand of DNA. It is a molecular structure that can interact with its environment, react and a produce a new molecular structure by chain reactions.

"switch gates and logic nodes which are found in the central dogma of molecular biology" - what page of the Moleculat Biology of the Cell, 4th edition such concepts arise?

Protein Primary Structure And Utility

"That EPSP synthase had a different function before is largely irrelevant to the discussion; the function is not what matters"

interesting... are you saying that if a function is deleterious, it will have the same fitness of a beneficial or neutral function? you must read some biology books... your crazy ideas are making you forget what really matters.

There is no functional use in not having proteins that would allow us to use energy from the sun, like plants have. Our ancestors evolved in a different manner. Because what decides if there is a benefial or not functionality is the environment. What really matters is the simple fact that if an useless function does not provide a benefit but also no deleterious effect, it has a likely chance to remain.

Humans don't have hands to drive cars, play music or write, but our hands can do all of those things. None of those activites were usefull in the past, nevertheless our hands did evolve in what they are now in order to have an adaptative usefullness in certain activites like hunting, gathering,...

My point is: neutral functions remain, if they aren't removed from the gene pool.

your opponent hasn't the need to present anything at all. Your "number of aminoacids" hypothesis is a joke, i'll assume.

Proteins And Probability

(1) lol... no it would not colapse. in fact they are strong because of it.

"Darwinians claim that the probability of endogenous retroviruses inserting themselves randomly into a host’s genome yet displaying a beautiful evolutionary tree is next to nil."

care to name me one "darwinian" saying that?

Ofc you don't understand the points your opponent is trying to make... you clearly have not a clue to the FACT that neutral structures do remain in the gene pool.

Abel and the others are mere hypothetical fools. Their work has not one single empirical validation, not mentioning the sheer denial in recognizing that neutral genetic codes remain in the gene pool.

In Brief

ID is exactly the same as saying there is a god, elfs or ETs. both three can be considered "intelligent agents".

In all of your magic thinking i failed to see how any diversification of the species can "fit" an ID model.

In all of your magic thinking i read an individual that can't tell the difference between evolution and abiogenesis; that clearly has no idea about what is chemical evolution; that clearly has a lot and i mean a LOT of misconcenptions, misunderstandings and a a LOT of ignorance about biology. Specially molecular biology.