[voltaire]

Extracellular lignocellulose-degrading enzymes are responsible for the transformation of organic matter in hardwood forest soils

So what organism deposits these enzymes onto the forest floor? Are you saying this enzyme survives on the forest floor indefinitely without being inside of a cellular structure?

[The Barbarian]

(research shows that there are many, many possible enzymes for each substrate)

Extracellular lignocellulose-degrading enzymes are responsible for the transformation of organic matter in hardwood forest soils

So what organism deposits these enzymes onto the forest floor?

What are you talking about? Do you know what an enzyme is?

They are synthesized by microbe, fungi, etc.

Are you saying this enzyme survives on the forest floor indefinitely without being inside of a cellular structure?

No.

[voltaire]

[quote=The Barbarian;3085034](research shows that there are many, many possible enzymes for each substrate)

Extracellular lignocellulose-degrading enzymes are responsible for the transformation of organic matter in hardwood forest soils

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

What are you talking about? Do you know what an enzyme is?

Yes, I know what an enzyme is. The only enzymes that I know about operate inside of cells and organisms.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

They are synthesized by microbe, fungi, etc.

They are produced (synthesized) by cells of all animals. DNA is trancribed into RNA and that RNA is translated into enzymes. You know good and well that I knew that. It isn't the microbe or the fungi that synthesizes them; it is the cells with them, specifically ribosomes inside cells that synthesizes them.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

No.

Well? Are these enzymes inside the organism when they are transforming the organic matter of the forest floor? The abstract makes it sound like raw enzymes (chemicals) were lying around the forest floor much like it were HCl or something completely separate from any living organism.

[George Affleck]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

You chose for your example, a human artifact, because if you had used a natural object, no one would see the "design."

Precisely.
In order for me to identify a logical principle, I cannot use an example that is not agreed upon as having a designer. Had I used a natural object, the argument would come back that design is not recognized because it is a natural object. (This is a further example of changing the rules of logic from objective to subjective when it suits the user.)

My purpose, however, was to show that science often recognizes the existence of an unknown witness in a material universe by non-material means and puts on it the empirical stamp of approval. This I have done.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

The notion that God is too weak to create a universe in which His laws produce all the natural things we see, that I don't understand.

Unfortunately I don't understand this comment.
Can you clarify?

[The Barbarian]

Extracellular lignocellulose-degrading enzymes are responsible for the transformation of organic matter in hardwood forest soils

So what organism deposits these enzymes onto the forest floor?

Barbarian chuckles:
What are you talking about? Do you know what an enzyme is?

Yes, I know what an enzyme is. The only enzymes that I know about operate inside of cells and organisms.

Well, good. Your comment had me wondering.

Barbarian observes:
They are synthesized by microbes, fungi, etc.

They are produced (synthesized) by cells of all animals. DNA is trancribed into RNA and that RNA is translated into enzymes. You know good and well that I knew that.

If so, why the question?

It isn't the microbe or the fungi that synthesizes them; it is the cells with them

Microbes are cells. I thought you knew.

Are you saying this enzyme survives on the forest floor indefinitely without being inside of a cellular structure?

Barbarian chuckles:
No.

Well?

Yep.

Are these enzymes inside the organism when they are transforming the organic matter of the forest floor?

Nope. They wouldn't be doing anything inside the microbes, would they? Microbes secrete enzymes that break down lignin and cellulose, the products of which they can then absorb into their cells for nutrition.

The abstract makes it sound like raw enzymes (chemicals) were lying around the forest floor much like it were HCl or something completely separate from any living organism.

Nope. At least not for anyone who understands how it works. Granted, I have a degree in bacteriology, so maybe I'm assuming a lot, but most people reading the paper would be familiar with the way microbes work.

[The Barbarian]

In order for me to identify a logical principle, I cannot use an example that is not agreed upon as having a designer. Had I used a natural object, the argument would come back that design is not recognized because it is a natural object.

So the challenge is to come up with a natural object that is obviously designed. That's the show-stopper, isn't it? Everything in nature is created, not designed.

My purpose, however, was to show that science often recognizes the existence of an unknown witness in a material universe by non-material means and puts on it the empirical stamp of approval.

Science is limited to the physical universe. It is unable to do what you want it to do.

Barbarian observes:
The notion that God is too weak to create a universe in which His laws produce all the natural things we see, that I don't understand.

Unfortunately I don't understand this comment.
Can you clarify?

Design implies a God unable to create by natural means.

[dave3712]

Originally Posted by alwight

Gen 1:1

?

"In the beginning, ‘God’... (the First Cause of all that has followed)”... ?






(Click on



Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps?), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang expansion from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,... in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

Barbarian chuckles:
What are you talking about? Do you know what an enzyme is?



Well, good. Your comment had me wondering.

Barbarian observes:
They are synthesized by microbes, fungi, etc.



If so, why the question?



Microbes are cells. I thought you knew.



Barbarian chuckles:
No.



Yep.



Nope. They wouldn't be doing anything inside the microbes, would they? Microbes secrete enzymes that break down lignin and cellulose, the products of which they can then absorb into their cells for nutrition.



Nope. At least not for anyone who understands how it works. Granted, I have a degree in bacteriology, so maybe I'm assuming a lot, but most people reading the paper would be familiar with the way microbes work.

Well, it isn't obvious from the abstract that the enzymes are secreted from microbes. It isn't obvious to the non-bacteriologist at least. Why couldn't you just say that the microbes secret the enzymes which break down the organic material on the forest floor into usable food for the microbe? The abstract certainly did not make it clear whether the enzymes were working within the microbes or without. I understand that the microbes cannot absorb huge chunks of cellulose into them at once. No, I wasn't sure whether microbes were single celled or not. I knew that bacteria were. What got me confused is that I know that enzymes within cells break down material that is already in the cell. That is why I questioned whether the enzyme was working within or without. If I had remembered that cellulose is much too large to be absorbed into a microbe, the sentence in the abstract would have been clearer.

Even so, certainly you could see where possible confusion could arise, especially after reading my concerns. You are stuck on ridicule and condescension, so such behavior would be beyond your purview I guess.

[voltaire]

What website is this from so I can investigate further?

[The Barbarian]

Well, it isn't obvious from the abstract that the enzymes are secreted from microbes. It isn't obvious to the non-bacteriologist at least.

I don't think any biologist wouldn't understand.

Why couldn't you just say that the microbes secret the enzymes which break down the organic material on the forest floor into usable food for the microbe?

Probably for the same reason that, if you were doing a study on the endurance of canids, you wouldn't feel the need to mention that they have lungs.

The abstract certainly did not make it clear whether the enzymes were working within the microbes or without. I understand that the microbes cannot absorb huge chunks of cellulose into them at once. No, I wasn't sure whether microbes were single celled or not. I knew that bacteria were. What got me confused is that I know that enzymes within cells break down material that is already in the cell. That is why I questioned whether the enzyme was working within or without. If I had remembered that cellulose is much too large to be absorbed into a microbe, the sentence in the abstract would have been clearer.

For some reason, I was thinking you were studying biology.

[voltaire]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

I don't think any biologist wouldn't understand.



Probably for the same reason that, if you were doing a study on the endurance of canids, you wouldn't feel the need to mention that they have lungs.



For some reason, I was thinking you were studying biology.

I have finished studying biology jerk. What is it you think I should know but don't?

I made an A as well. That doesn't stop you from being a jerk and it doesn't stop that abstract from being confusing either.

[George Affleck]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

You chose for your example, a human artifact, because if you had used a natural object, no one would see the "design."

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

So the challenge is to come up with a natural object that is obviously designed. That's the show-stopper, isn't it? Everything in nature is created, not designed.

I have shown that science often identifies an entity that has not been observed and that it can be added to the sum of our empirical knowledge. This was the original objection and I have shown the objection to be false. You have pointed out that it is allowable only because of the nature of the object and our prior knowledge of similar artifacts.

(By the way - How many games of chess can you play at once?
I'm still trying to figure out this "quote reply" thingy that doesn't work.
I must be too old!)

The assumed right of playing the NATURAL card like a joker that trumps everything as a veto power is a false premise. Let me explain.

The discussion (in our sidebar to the original topic) is essentially about whether or not there is a discovery principle that states that design is recognizable when an artifact requires an intelligence to fashion it into existence. We are now at the point of discussing when that principle is to be discarded in favour of an overriding principle.

‘Naturally occurring’ does not mean 'that which cannot be designed'. You and I could decide that this is what it means, but it has never been established as part of the definition. That is why it cannot be invoked as a reason to override the original principle. This addition to the definition is an assumption designed to limit and control the outcome.

This is what I mean about subjective logic. When it suits the individual, a definition can be secretly stretched to provide a seemingly airtight case. Naturally occurring could mean "a natural result of that which God has set in motion" as much as it could mean "a natural result of evolving processes".

Barbarian observes:
The notion that God is too weak to create a universe in which His laws produce all the natural things we see, that I don't understand.

Design implies a God unable to create by natural means.[/quote]

Maybe I get his part now. Are you suggesting that, because He chose to do things the way He did, this implies that He could not have used other means?

That's like saying, because you walked to the store, this implies you do not have a driver's license. That kind of argument is not worthy of you.

[The Barbarian]

I have finished studying biology jerk.

I'm impressed. I've been studying it for about 50 years, and I'm not close to being finished. In fact, the more I know, the more I realize I don't know.

What is it you think I should know but don't?

The part about microbes, for example.

I made an A as well.

That's impressive.

That doesn't stop you from being a jerk and it doesn't stop that abstract from being confusing either.

Sometimes, one has a little success in something, and one assumes one knows it all. All of us need to guard against that, um?

[The Barbarian]

(By the way - How many games of chess can you play at once?

Haven't played in almost 30 years. In college, I played several games a day. I'm probably horrible at it now.

I'm still trying to figure out this "quote reply" thingy that doesn't work.
I must be too old!)

I started on USENET, so I do it all myself, out of habit. Not a good habit to get into, I think.

The assumed right of playing the NATURAL card like a joker that trumps everything as a veto power is a false premise.

Or in this case, a strawman.

Let me explain.

The discussion (in our sidebar to the original topic) is essentially about whether or not there is a discovery principle that states that design is recognizable when an artifact requires an intelligence to fashion it into existence.

Humans are very good at distinguishing the two. There is an obvious difference.

We are now at the point of discussing when that principle is to be discarded in favour of an overriding principle.

Comes down to evidence.

‘Naturally occurring’ does not mean 'that which cannot be designed'. You and I could decide that this is what it means, but it has never been established as part of the definition.

Normally, the problem is the meaning of "design." If you water it down to "intent", then "design" applies to anything created, designed or not. (here I'm using "designed" to mean actually considered and made to a specific plan)

That is why it cannot be invoked as a reason to override the original principle. This addition to the definition is an assumption designed to limit and control the outcome.

There's a strong clue in the fact that engineers, when design is inadequate to solve a complex problem, often use genetic algorithms to evolve a solution.

As usual, God knew best.

This is what I mean about subjective logic. When it suits the individual, a definition can be secretly stretched to provide a seemingly airtight case. Naturally occurring could mean "a natural result of that which God has set in motion" as much as it could mean "a natural result of evolving processes".

But of course, that is not design, except in the trivial sense of "intent." If that's all you mean, then I can't argue.

Barbarian observes:
The notion that God is too weak to create a universe in which His laws produce all the natural things we see, that I don't understand.

Design implies a God unable to create by natural means.[/quote]

Maybe I get his part now. Are you suggesting that, because He chose to do things the way He did, this implies that He could not have used other means?

I think He could do whatever He wanted to do. That engineers have shown what He actually did is the most elegant solution, suggests that He just did it the best way. By "elegant", I mean it in the sense of an "elegant proof"; an economy of rules and functional simplicity.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by dave3712

?

"In the beginning, ‘God’... (the First Cause of all that has followed)”... ?






(Click on



Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps?), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang expansion from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of Seven Stages:
1) The Inflation Era
2) The Quark Era
3) Hadron Era
4) Lepton Era
5) Nucleosynthesis Era
6) Opaque Era
7) Matter Era,... in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.

Originally Posted by dave3712

So how does the Genesis story differ from what science tells us?

Science doesn't even speculate about gods, let alone claim that a particular "God" did it.