Intelligent Design: Coming To A State Legislature Near You

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text>Actually, this comment was in response to MG's post about CJ, regarding CJ's ego. I was, in fact, complimenting CJ in my own clumsy, puppydog-way. CJ's funny and entertaining.

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey no worries.
You know, the "Chimney" moniker was just when I was sniffing around Topix for the first time, looking for quit smoking advice about Chantix of all things, nearly 2 years back. Didn't quit back then. but I did find some interesting forums, like this one.
I did finally quit 2 weeks ago. Little bit cranky right now, but I am sure that will pass soon.
My regards to you, and to Sheila.

Sheila wrote:

<quoted text> Could your tunnel vision possibly be dissipating, or are you still playing bait-and switch?

Judged:

2

1

1

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
Give it another decade. 20 years, tops.

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, I know that and you also have the right to speculate.
However, expect to be challenged when you do. You are inserting entities or concepts that have no supporting evidence, in order to explain anything that is not yet bolted down by current theory.
Your challengers - mostly DS and me at this moment, are simply saying that there is no reason at this time to believe that some unknown unobserved mysterious forces are at work. Consider how far science has gone by refusing to attribute unknowns to such forces.
Lets take the "mystery" of chirality in proteins. Proteins found in living systems are indeed all chirally pure, "left handed".
A dimwitted person will say this is sure evidence that "Goddidit!" (or aliens or whatever) and that is the only possible explanation.
On the other hand, if you are a rational, problem solving scientist, you will see chiral purity as evidence that a selection factor was already at work. For example, chirally pure proteins tend to have more rigid structures than chirally mixed proteins. It is therefore quite possible that early life used mixed versions but purer versions were naturally selected, perhaps gradually.
Another possibility would be that any slight chiral imbalance would lead to a cascade of selection favouring one over the other.
These conjectures may lead to testable hypothesis and eventually a theory of chirality in living systems. Researchers will be working on this issue and will eventually come up with a rational answer while mystics blabber on about Higher Powers.

Pokay1kaduB wrote:

What specificity can come from any variation you have in mind? Again I remember your idea of replication. In actual spontaneous replication research there are no good examples of variation at all, but in your world you seem to think that the spontaneous formation of a lipid protocell (exactly the same idea as a soap bubble) is somehow representative of replication.

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
But why "left-handed" and not right? Why a universe of more matter than anti-matter or a universe consisting of more Dark Matter than matter?

shinningelectr0n wrote:

<quoted text>
But why "left-handed" and not right? Why a universe of more matter than anti-matter or a universe consisting of more Dark Matter than matter? Each lifespan is a prolonged moment of anti-entropy. There emerges a drift or tendency in the natural world that appeals strongly to the mystic side of our being. Go easy on them. They're only human.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if there were more anti-matter than matter, then we would be calling anti-matter "matter" and we would be calling matter "anti-matter". And so far as we can determine, we *do* live in a universe of more dark matter than ordinary matter. As for the handedness, so long as there *is* handedness, then there would be reasons for there to be more of one than another (since the modern Universe is determined from various starting conditions). Change the starting conditions, and we might have more "right" than "left".

shinningelectr0n wrote:

Why chirality to begin with?

shinningelectr0n wrote:

Regarding Matter/Antimatter, if the Universe began with equal parts it might be assumed that the two would annihilate each other resulting in a growing void but no matter inside of it.

Judged:

1

Chimney wrote:

<quoted text>
And to Pokay - ever looked at this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Libet
Famous experiments looking into free will (i,e, consciousness affecting matter).

Noodly James wrote:

<quoted text>
Handedness begets handedness. There is a slight predominance of the L enantiomer over the R in reactions. This may be all that was needed.
This link illustrates what happens when a single enantiomer predominates.
http://www.physorg.com/news169375753.html
And then there are catalysts which convert one enantiomer into it's partner.
http://www.physorg.com/news162828115.html

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Or that different regions of the Universe consist of either matter or anti-matter, and the anti-matter regions are beyond the boundaries of the part of the Universe we can observe.

Judged:

2

Nietzsche wrote:

Both sides of the evolution vs design debate have their flaws.
Evolution is progressive and has a direction. There are necessary steps and stages and the results of the processs are not random at all. Nature becomes self aware and it produces within and of itself, the almighty.

Judged:

1

1

Nietzsche wrote:

Both sides of the evolution vs design debate have their flaws.
Evolution is progressive and has a direction. There are necessary steps and stages and the results of the processs are not random at all. Nature becomes self aware and it produces within and of itself, the almighty.