Spearthrower wrote:

'directed' and 'purpose' infer teleology.

So what?
You've not shown any contradiction from any statement I've made.

You do this by quoting directly my statement, and then contrasting it with the supposed contradictory one.
You do know how to do this.

Please do so, or admit that you can't and no contradiction exists.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

In that case, can you substantiate the claim that enzymes show a sense of purpose?

Enzymes act to promote a specific reaction, that is their purpose.

Well, I would say that enzymes do not have a purpose, but a function. Their function is to promote a specific reaction, not their purpose. And generally, in chemistry and in most sciences, we speak about the function of an enzyme, catalyst or other, not purpose.

95Theses wrote:You staerted the thread, how about you espouse what you think about abiogenesis first?

I thought my views on Abiogenesis were well known.
I've stated that I remain unconvinced that Abiogenesis could occur as a result of undirected chemical reactions. I would like someone who does believe that a Replicator could arise from the chemistry of the Early Earth, to put in place a convincing argument. I'm prepared to be open minded about it.

Please do not vaguely wave at a list of scholarly papers, although do refer to them when relevant. Rather put the arguments and the relevant chemistry into your own words.

Please do better than the argument that it must have happened by undirected reactions, because otherwise "Goddidit". That is really stale, and isn't a Science and Chemistry answer.

Anybody up to this?

Darkchilde wrote:

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

In that case, can you substantiate the claim that enzymes show a sense of purpose?

Enzymes act to promote a specific reaction, that is their purpose.

Well, I would say that enzymes do not have a purpose, but a function. Their function is to promote a specific reaction, not their purpose. And generally, in chemistry and in most sciences, we speak about the function of an enzyme, catalyst or other, not purpose.

Same thing. This is splitting hairs:
"Function
[noun] what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"
Synonyms: purpose, role, use"
http://www.elook.org/dictionary/function.html

Rainbow, there are only two choices here:

1. Abiogenesis is a completely natural process, coming about from chemical reactions; or
2. Some 'intelligence' (whether that is a god, or aliens does not matter) 'directed' the abiogenesis process.

To which view do you ascribe rainbow? I say, that abiogenesis is a completely natural process. There is and never has been any evidence of any 'intelligence'...

And rainbow, please do not ignore this post. I want an answer, from you, a choice: either 1 or 2 or a 3rd alternative and explain that please.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

In that case, can you substantiate the claim that enzymes show a sense of purpose?

Enzymes act to promote a specific reaction, that is their purpose.

No. That is what they do. That is not the same as their purpose.

Otherwise, the implication of this would seem to be that anything that something does is it's purpose. So apparently, a flatulent person's purpose is to fill their environment with noxious gases.

rainbow wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

In that case, can you substantiate the claim that enzymes show a sense of purpose?

Enzymes act to promote a specific reaction, that is their purpose.

Well, I would say that enzymes do not have a purpose, but a function. Their function is to promote a specific reaction, not their purpose. And generally, in chemistry and in most sciences, we speak about the function of an enzyme, catalyst or other, not purpose.

Same thing. This is splitting hairs:
"Function
[noun] what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"
Synonyms: purpose, role, use"
http://www.elook.org/dictionary/function.html

But the purpose is externally assigned. Unless you are suggesting this is the case with an enzyme, that it has an externally assigned purpose, the word is a poor fit for this situation.

Consider the auger from this quote. It has been designed with the externally assigned purpose of boring holes. The holes are bored for an externally assigned purpose. On the other hand, if a rock flying through the air (say from a volcano, for example) happens to make a hole in something, was the purpose of the rock to make a hole?

rainbow wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

In that case, can you substantiate the claim that enzymes show a sense of purpose?

Enzymes act to promote a specific reaction, that is their purpose.

Well, I would say that enzymes do not have a purpose, but a function. Their function is to promote a specific reaction, not their purpose. And generally, in chemistry and in most sciences, we speak about the function of an enzyme, catalyst or other, not purpose.

Same thing. This is splitting hairs:
"Function
[noun] what something is used for; "the function of an auger is to bore holes"; "ballet is beautiful but what use is it?"
Synonyms: purpose, role, use"
http://www.elook.org/dictionary/function.html

NO, Function does not equal purpose. We are not splitting hairs, rainbow, we are making use of the right terminology., You will not see the word purpose many times in science; even in technology you will see the word function. Purpose does not enter much in a scientific contest, and is a much different word. Although sometimes, a function can be mistaken for purpose, and the opposite, in science they are very different words. Purpose is the answer to the question why, and function to the question how. In science the right question to ask is how, not why. The enzyme therefore, answers the question of how and not a question of why, just like everything else in science.

If you want to talk about why and purpose, then philosophy is for you. But not for me, as I don't do navel-gazing either.

Darkchilde wrote:Rainbow, there are only two choices here:

1. Abiogenesis is a completely natural process, coming about from chemical reactions; or
2. Some 'intelligence' (whether that is a god, or aliens does not matter) 'directed' the abiogenesis process.

To which view do you ascribe rainbow?

Neither. I'm Agnostic if you like. I'm open to convincing Evidence from both sides.

I say, that abiogenesis is a completely natural process.

Good. Please present what you consider to be the most convincing Positive Evidence for this. Include all relevant Chemical Equations, Equilibria and Reaction Rates.
Thanking you in appreciation of your full and honest answer.

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

'directed' and 'purpose' infer teleology.

So what?
You've not shown any contradiction from any statement I've made.

You do this by quoting directly my statement, and then contrasting it with the supposed contradictory one.
You do know how to do this.

Please do so, or admit that you can't and no contradiction exists.

rainbow wrote:A directed reaction is one that is controlled through enzymes within a living system, or by artificial intervention.

Contradiction: there is no teleology here. Directed is the wrong word.

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:[ Does it require the direct intervention of man throughout the experience or is it sufficient for man to put things in place and leave them to their own devices? A car is man made. Does that mean leaving it to rust is a directed chemical reaction?

Not unless there is some purpose to leaving the car to rust.

Contradiction: Purpose is entirely irrelevant: the car still rusts. No teleology required.

rainbow wrote:No. Every reaction may occur without intervention, however other reactions will also take place simultaneously that are not desired to achieve the Purpose. By directing the reaction, only those reactions required for the Purpose take place.

Contradiction: You are inferring teleology for some reactions and not for others. There is no directorial role, nor is there a purpose. You are using the wrong words trying to squeeze in terms you can equivocate on later. Been there 10 times or more with you.... and a lot more often with Doug.

rainbow wrote:If the fire were to be used to boil water, then yes. The water would not have boiled otherwise, would it?

If heat and water meet the water always boils, regardless of the intent, purpose, direction or any other equivocation that infers an additional entity controlling these reactions. The fact that humans can bring heat and water together does not mean that water does not boil naturally without humans doing it.

It's so transparent.

rainbow wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Rainbow, there are only two choices here:

1. Abiogenesis is a completely natural process, coming about from chemical reactions; or
2. Some 'intelligence' (whether that is a god, or aliens does not matter) 'directed' the abiogenesis process.

To which view do you ascribe rainbow?

Neither. I'm Agnostic if you like. I'm open to convincing Evidence from both sides.

Which means that you are evading the question.

rainbow wrote:

I say, that abiogenesis is a completely natural process.

Good. Please present what you consider to be the most convincing Positive Evidence for this. Include all relevant Chemical Equations, Equilibria and Reaction Rates.
Thanking you in appreciation of your full and honest answer.

Well, the essay for the writing competition by Calilasseia explains everything in detail and has a lot of sources. I am not a chemist; I have only general knowledge in chemistry.

The original RDF post: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=108296#p2698606
and the copied post here: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/abiogenesis-t844.html#p9823

rainbow wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Rainbow, there are only two choices here:

1. Abiogenesis is a completely natural process, coming about from chemical reactions; or
2. Some 'intelligence' (whether that is a god, or aliens does not matter) 'directed' the abiogenesis process.

To which view do you ascribe rainbow?

Neither. I'm Agnostic if you like. I'm open to convincing Evidence from both sides.

And what evidence is there for 2.?

xrayzed wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Your entire argument rests upon the serial trials and one true sequence fallacies, and have done from the start.

I beg to differ. I have yet to see rainbow actually present an argument.

I'd love to see him do so, but it's become rather clear that that's not part of the game he plays, and he gets rather resentful when it's pointed out. The chances of getting him to present one here are vanishingly small.

I'll keep an eye on this thread on the off-chance that he might actually say something substantive. I'm sure he's capable of it.

Just to be clear, my assessment is not based just on this thread, but on the previous two threads at RDF as well.

Darkchilde wrote:
Which means that you are evading the question.

No, it doesn't.
I'm not going to take up a position just to suit you. If you are unable to accept what I've stated above as being true, then there is no point in any further discussion with you.
Am I clear on this?

xrayzed wrote:

rainbow wrote:

Darkchilde wrote:Rainbow, there are only two choices here:

1. Abiogenesis is a completely natural process, coming about from chemical reactions; or
2. Some 'intelligence' (whether that is a god, or aliens does not matter) 'directed' the abiogenesis process.

To which view do you ascribe rainbow?

Neither. I'm Agnostic if you like. I'm open to convincing Evidence from both sides.

And what evidence is there for 2.?

Did you not understand my post?
Please read it again.

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:A directed reaction is one that is controlled through enzymes within a living system, or by artificial intervention.

Contradiction: there is no teleology here.

No contradiction. I didn't claim that teleology was involved in enzyme action. You may make that claim if you wish, but then you justify the statement.

Directed is the wrong word.

Suggest a better word then, and justify your reasoning.

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:[ Does it require the direct intervention of man throughout the experience or is it sufficient for man to put things in place and leave them to their own devices? A car is man made. Does that mean leaving it to rust is a directed chemical reaction?

Not unless there is some purpose to leaving the car to rust.

Contradiction: Purpose is entirely irrelevant: the car still rusts. No teleology required.

No contradiction. Purpose is absolutely relevant as to whether the rusting was directed or not. The reaction takes place because someone directed it to take place by purposefully leaving it to do so. Clearly the example is absurd, but then it wasn't my example. If there was no intervention and the car did rust, it would be an undirected reaction.
I don't know why you are resisting this very simple concept.

rainbow wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

rainbow wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:[ Does it require the direct intervention of man throughout the experience or is it sufficient for man to put things in place and leave them to their own devices? A car is man made. Does that mean leaving it to rust is a directed chemical reaction?

Not unless there is some purpose to leaving the car to rust.

Contradiction: Purpose is entirely irrelevant: the car still rusts. No teleology required.

No contradiction. Purpose is absolutely relevant as to whether the rusting was directed or not. The reaction takes place because someone directed it to take place by purposefully leaving it to do so. Clearly the example is absurd, but then it wasn't my example. If there was no intervention and the car did rust, it would be an undirected reaction.
I don't know why you are resisting this very simple concept.

rainbow, as I said in this post:
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chemistry/abiogenesis-t844-80.html#p19893

Darkchilde wrote:

NO, Function does not equal purpose. We are not splitting hairs, rainbow, we are making use of the right terminology., You will not see the word purpose many times in science; even in technology you will see the word function. Purpose does not enter much in a scientific contest, and is a much different word. Although sometimes, a function can be mistaken for purpose, and the opposite, in science they are very different words. Purpose is the answer to the question why, and function to the question how. In science the right question to ask is how, not why. The enzyme therefore, answers the question of how and not a question of why, just like everything else in science.

If you want to talk about why and purpose, then philosophy is for you. But not for me, as I don't do navel-gazing either.

The reaction takes place, and that's it. The reaction itself does not have a purpose; the reaction just happens, it is natural that the car will rust. Not just the car, but any similar materials will rust because of the oxygen in the air. If there was no oxygen, there would be no rusting.

The person who left the car to rust has a purpose; he is the one with the purpose.

The reaction would take place with or without that person's interference in similar conditions. So, the reaction does not have a purpose.

Spearthrower wrote:
Contradiction: You are inferring teleology for some reactions and not for others.

No contradiction. Some reactions take place as a result of Design, others don't.
I'd have thought that this was obvious.

rainbow wrote:If the fire were to be used to boil water, then yes. The water would not have boiled otherwise, would it?

If heat and water meet the water always boils, regardless of the intent, purpose, direction or any other equivocation that infers an additional entity controlling these reactions. The fact that humans can bring heat and water together does not mean that water does not boil naturally without humans doing it.

I don't really know what point you're trying to make.
Again it is obvious that the reaction of boiling water is directed if done for some purpose, but is undirected if happening by some random natural event.

rainbow wrote:
I don't really know what point you're trying to make.
Again it is obvious that the reaction of boiling water is directed if done for some purpose, but is undirected if happening by some random natural event.

Again, you do not understand the point. The point is that a reaction will happen regardless of whether there is someone behind it or not. So, a reaction has no purpose and no direction.

We, humans, use reactions to suit our own purposes. Which is not the same thing.