1. So says the guy that doesn't understand how to set up an experiment so that the parameters to be observed are not affected by the constraints if the experiment. By your criteria, any experiment that requires a laboratory is invalid because a person built the laboratory.
2. If gycolysis is the only process running the cell will die earlier than if all the processes are running. So? The real question is will the cell produce offspring before its death. Yeast will. So, that pretty much shows that aerobic cellular respiration is not irreducibly complex.
BTW: Refusal to acknowledge my arguments is not the same thing as demolishing them....at least not in most definitions of those two terms.
3. The form of the GBR, location of corals, anemone's...etc, is complex. Did the form of the GBR arise through random events or controlled events? Did that complexity of form arise from nature or did God choose the location of each coral?
4. I note the acknowledgement on your part that scientists do not ignore or hand-wave away the problems of complexity.
5. Now you get to redefine complexity. Perhaps you mean "specified complexity"?
Can you demonstrate that DNA is an example of "specified complexity"? What is it about the DNA molecule that indicates it depicts or requires more information than a typhoon or mountain range? Telling me that it is obvious is not really an explanation.
6. What "natural law" prevents the self replicating molecules from forming?
7. Name a chemical reaction that is not spontaneous. Wait, don't do that. You will have to give me your definition of spontaneous reaction first.
8. Perhaps it means a chemical reaction that occurs without the reactants in close proximity to each other.
9. Strange, I don't recall the word "vast" in your previous post.
10. Besides, the vastness of the ocean has little to do with the concentration of chemical reactants in any particular part of the ocean. Coastlines contain a myriad of locations that can concentrate chemical reactants.
1. Groan.... Yet again you are putting YOUR words in my mouth, I never said such a thing. Actually I said the opposite if you bothered to actually read and comprehend my posts... (Which I continue to ask you to do...)
"
sure they can set up an environment however once the environment is set only natural reactions / interactions count, anything else is deemed an intelligent agent thus destroying the validity of the study."
Setting up an environment within a lab.... totally goes against what you are stating I am saying..... oops
2. Great!! You acknowledge the cell will die without all the other processes.... Therefore how can you state that a cell came about "bit by bit" as per evolution, when you realise that to do such will result in death. Ergo the ONLY way for the cell to survive is to have ALL its parts intact and functioning right at the start of life. There is no room for its buts or maybes, you're admitted that death will result in only a partial system, therefore the method claimed from evolutionary processes ie- abiogenesis will result in death since this is the exact method it is claiming.....
Yeast will? Yeast will survive will all of its genes neutered except for those specifically relating to glycolysis? If not then your premise doesn't rebutt my claim, (or you just don't understand what I am trying to teach you here).
3. Must I repeat..
"Keep in mind my disclaimer, (which you've totally ignored...)
"NOTE: Using the term complex as per information / activities that depict / require information since that is what we observe within the DNA code.".... ( you need to read and comprehend my posts)
How does a coral reef fit within the complexity demonstrated within the formation of life because honestly I do not see how your argument has ANY correlation to this thread at all.. its merely a red herring.
4. Ummm you need to read again..... I never said such a thing....
" I've been speaking from my own experiences where an example of complexity comes up in a lecture and its immediately claimed "evolution did it" (or something to that effect), without actually pointing out the specific mechanisms and causes for such a thing... As if claiming evolution was a magic wand that made those questions go away."
Claiming evolution as a cause but without any mechanisms for said cause IS a hand-wavy explanation, no amount of mental gymnastics can change that.
5. That was what I stated as a disclaimer of my intent before your post, if you disagreed with such you should have read and comprehended it before. In fact its a clarification of the complexity Calypsis is mentioning in his OP, (I did this so you cannot equivocate, which you've been trying to do this entire time).
6. Did I state that there was a natural law? (Again you are putting words in my mouth... very bad form). I said that in order for these "experiments" to be valid pertaining to a natural cause of life it must be wholly 100% pertaining to natural laws and processes. Thus no human intervention like, Miller removing the carboxylic acids between shocks and lowering the voltage to less than 1% of actual lightning, etc....
7. I am not your teacher if you want something defined go search for the definition. I use the definition all scientists use, it is not ambigous so there are not multiple interpretations.
8. You're kidding right!!! Please tell me this was a joke... Please! A chemical reaction that occurs when the reactants are not close to each other?... Do you know what a chemical reaction is? You mustn't since you wouldn't say such a silly thing. A chemical reaction occurs when two molecules bump into each other with the proper activation energy. This is why enzymes increase the rate of reaction, as enzymes hold molecules in specific positions which lowers the activation energy required, thus meaning a larger % of the bumbing atoms will have enough energy to produce the reaction... Now please tell me since a reaction is when two molecules are bumping into each other... how in the world can you have a reaction that occurs when the reactants are not close to each other? This isn't magic, this is science, please keep that in mind.
9. Vast is a describing word, am I not allowed to use descriptive words in my posts now? Honestly you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel if you are going to argue over my use of a describing word... It just goes without saying the ocean is indeed vast, or would you like to debate this fact too?
10. Umm yeah it does... The concentration of a substance within a medium is directly correlated to the amount of molecules (moles / M) and its volume (V)...
C=M/V
volume is the amount of medium meaning the larger V is like ocean sized the smaller the concentration... This is an establised equation, go look it up in a chemistry book. Additionally this also works with equilibrium which acts to ensure that the concentration of X within the ocean will be equal (allowing time for dispersion to occur).
Therefore how large the ocean is DOES have an effect on the concentration of the reactants.... Do you believe the ocean at one point was littered with peptides and such? This is what you need to believe if you want to believe that abiogenesis occured in the ocean... that at one time the ocean was a goopy mass of sludge with peptides, carboxylic acids, lipids etc.... However, where did all the water come from if it used to be so thick full of "reactants for life"?