I conclude evolution is guided

by KateWild 532 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  konceptual99

  Opps sorry I didn't think it was constant. I am wrong though Ruby is interested too. She read the paper. But over the years when cofty has posted the link to the paper, no one else posted any chemistry in relation to it.
  Have you read the links? Are you going to?

  I didn't even manage to get O level chemistry so it sometimes takes me some time to digest the science let alone think about posting more chemistry.

  I do read the links however as much as possible. Ultimately if people don't post it does not mean they are not interested.
• 

  never a jw

  I conclude evolution is guided

  Then the deity guiding evolution has produced so much waste. That's OK for us imperfect humans, but not for the creator of the universe to have so many defective, unfit species and individuals (99.99%) over billions of years. Also, why would it take him 3.8 billion years (history of life on earth) to come with up with his "wonderful" present designs. Even imperfect humans can do better given that long a time. Look at the human accomplishments just in the last 200 years. How much can they do in 3,8000,000,000 years. Look out God, The creators of artificial intelligence are going to out do your designs very soon. In fact, they are doing it now. Your guided process of producing food became insufficient many decades or even centuries ago. It took human ingenuity to improve your inefficient evolutionary process to produce food.
  
• 

  Ruby456

  hi kate

  So imo she does agree with Kenso Soai - at least she does not contradict him - Ruby

  Well it's not about agreeing or disagreeing with Soai. He just presents results, and does not draw conclusions about whether or not evolution is guided. But his results do support my conclusions, or confirm my bias.kate

  what I meant is that the chemistry part of Soai's paper does not detract from your chemistry.

  interesting read here and support for my thesis re self organizing systems. Please tell me what you think Kate - but don't make it too complex as I am no chemist/biologist anything

  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2857173/
  

  Where Do We Go from Here?

  The pathway to life may be seen as a saga of increasing chemical and physical complexity (see, for example,Hazen 2010). The modern field of “systems chemistry” (von Kiedrowski 2005) seeks to understand the chemical roots of biological organization by studying the emergence of system properties that may be different from those showed individually by the components in isolation. The implications of the single chirality of biological molecules may be viewed in this context of complexity. Whether or not we will ever know how this property developed in the living systems represented on Earth today, studies of how single chirality might have emerged will aid us in understanding the much larger question of how life might have, and might again, emerge as a complex system.
• 

  OneGenTwoGroups

  It already got resurrected, sorry.

  What do you mean by guidance? Another process not yet defined? Aliens? Yahweh?
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "Instead of saying I believe in God of the gaps I apply Occam's Razor to explain that evolution is guided."

  So you are saying that guided evolution, that is a consciously guided evolutionary process, is a simpler explanation than non-guided evolutionary processes?

  How is that simpler? All you have done is add a multitude of unanswered questions without answering the initial question.

  Is this a serious thread or are you a Poe?
  
• 

  Coded Logic

  Why do we need to tell the difference? What we need to draw any conclusions is satisfying evidence. What satisfies one person, does not satisfy another.
  -Kate

  We need to be able to tell the difference because we have two competing explanations for our observations. One of the explanations has met its burden of proof - we know that mutation and natural selection operate perfectly well without any agency or a need for any outside guidance. The second explanation has NOT met it's burden of proof. It has not explained who was doing the guidance and how/when/where/why that guidance was done.
  

  Conclusions shouldn't be based on what "satisfies" us. They should be based on what is most likely true.

  Postulating that evolution was "guided" to satisfy something we don't understand isn't an explanation. It's an argument from ignorance. Because we can't solve one mystery with another mystery. We can't explain one unknown by postulating the existence of another unknown.

  
  
• 

  cofty

  the chemistry part of Soai's paper does not detract from your chemistry - Ruby

  Actually it does EXACTLY that.

  Kate - All the stuff that makes up living things is left-handed. That could not happen by accident therefore it must be guided by a creator.

  Kenso Soai (21 years ago) - Look I have shown how replicating stuff can end up all left-handed. We can now explain exactly how that happens naturally.

  These two positions could not be more diametrically opposed.
• 

  Saename

  
  
• 

  cofty

  Cofty is just as much confirming his bias and twisting facts as I am. - Kate

  I never twist facts. My policy is to seek out the very best arguments against my position and follow the evidence wherever it leads. I don't want to be wrong any longer than necessary.

  If there was any evidence that life had a designer that would would be awesome.

  Thank you for admitting your intellectual dishonesty.
• 

  Ruby456

  Cofty this is what Kate maintains and I agree with her conclusions that there is something contrived/artifical/made rather than natural about the process. But I do not make as much of a distinction between naturalism and contrivance as you and others here do . Soai only makes a very small contribution to a particular part of the process leaving the rest unknown.