"Naturally occurring" means existing by nature and without man's assistance as opposed to "synthesizing" to make (something) by synthesis, especially chemically. There are 93 naturally occurring chemical elements.
By the numbers, it sounds like you meant Atoms? We're not creating any atoms in this context. Surely you meant something else by "Naturally occurring" previously?
Plastic is material consisting of any of a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic organic compounds that are malleable and so can be molded into solid objects BUT do nor occur naturally, they are man-made.
No one is claiming that plastics are occurring "by themselves" in "the nature". Nature has however provided a vessel - us to produce plastics to this earth. To the extent that they're everywhere now, unfortunately.
We are vessel for plastics to be generated, just like DNA is to life, just like nucleotides is to RNA, just like the environment of the young earth was to nucleotides.. It all follows roughly the same pattern, they are just governed by different mechanics (engineering, natural selection, biochemistry, chemistry... )
The experiments that you have shared with me -- are scientists trying to synthesize polymers through processes that naturally cannot occur. Yes, they can be synthesized but could never naturally evolve.
But they continuously show that they can, and under which circumstances. One thing turns into another.
And we know this "another" is basis for the next step, and we show how "another" then transforms into that next step. We have life figured out very close to the beginning. We just need to learn that too, just like we've done until this point.
It feels like you may be stuck in a similar situation in which science was a few decades ago:
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/origsoflife_06
Earth’s atmosphere is oxidizing (i.e., oxygen rich) and naturally prohibits the spontaneous formation of biomolecules outside the protection of a living cell.
Yes, Earth's atmosphere today is relative oxygen rich, but that couldn't have been the case until there were reactions that could release oxygen. Even then, that oxygen may be hard to keep free in the presence of, for example, iron:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_oxygen
And even if we would ignore what we know of the oxygen-levels of Earth, be aware of the dynamics that give way to even more possibilities.
Even in an oxygen-rich environment, we have underwater caves all around the world, which have more or less their own atmosphere. Any potential oxygen can be greatly reduced or eliminated, paving the way for reactions not possible "in the open air".
Add to that the possibility of seasonal changes - be it tidal or more long term events, causing a periodic machine to produce and move different substances.
Just like any other dynamics in our human experience. Be it the knowledge of the formation of stars, solar systems, galaxies, life, species, civilizations, engineering, social structures. Things change "randomly", but the constraints in any given setting statistically steer the result in some direction. Giving us a feeling of ever increasing structure (or being able to estimate/predict events that will cause a system to go unstable).
Dear @jwamshop,
No, I don't mean atoms. I am speaking of elements.
Elements are each of more than one hundred substances that cannot be chemically interconverted or broken down into simpler substances and are primary constituents of matter. Each element is distinguished by its atomic number, i.e., the number of protons in the nuclei of its atoms.
Examples of elements:
H - Hydrogen
He - Helium
Li - Lithium
Be - Beryllium
B - Boron
C - Carbon
N - Nitrogen
O - Oxygen
Seasons change but they are cyclical. The oxygen cycle, nitrogen cycle, hydrologic cycle, etc. are not random. Everything including solar systems, galaxies, life, etc. show design and purpose. They evidence that there is a designer who created them.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Same thing. Just a language barrier as we were previously talking about much larger chemical bonds and couldn't see what the creation of heavy "synthetic" atoms (or elements) had to do with it.
They can't be chemically interconverted, but they sure can be broken down or combined. That's how all elements except Hydrogen is created. Be it by gravity or by humans. Fusion and fission.
Of course they are not random. A ridiculous amount of Hydrogen in space will eventually assemble into stars, planets, solar systems and galaxies. There is no design necessary for that to happen, it's a logical consequence of physics.
Absolutely incorrect. None of the mentioned things show any traces of design, but show a logical growth of structure within their own domains' constraints.
Pure counter-examples of the lack of design and intelligence are such of the eye of an mammal, in which the nerves are on the wrong side of the eye, causing a blind-spot. Or the laryngeal nerve which in a comical way shows the "mishaps" of evolution when studying it in a Zebra. We can explain why the nerve looks the way it does because of evolution. Just like we can explain, say, suicidal animals.
There is no reason for an intelligent being to make these mistakes, there is also no reason why it the flaws need to be across species, and why all species are structured in such order that it looks exactly as if they had evolved into being, rather than being creatively designed.
Nature doesn't contain anything that points at being created through design, intelligence or any after thought, except for the actual creations by a number of animals, of which we are the most capable in doing so. At least at this time of the earth's history.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Dear @jwamshop:
Vocal cords in the larynx are innervated by the right and left laryngeal nerves. These nerves branch off of their respective vagus cranial nerves. On the left side, the vagus nerve travels from the skull, down the neck, toward the heart, and then past it. The recurrent laryngeal nerve branches off from the vagus just below the aorta. Looping under the aorta, the RLN then travels upward (or recurs) to serve several organs as it travels up to the larynx. Evolutionists see poor design in the fact that the left nerve does not branch off closer to the larynx. (It should be noted that even though the left RLN is longer than the right nerve, signals to each nerve are adjusted so that the vocal cords are stimulated simultaneously so normal speech is produced.)
This is NOT poor design:
Investigations at Johns Hopkins Medical School found that during development, “the left vagus nerve and its recurrent laryngeal branch form a sling supporting the distal (or ductus arteriosus component) of the left sixth aortic arch.” Remarkably, these researchers found in their study that:
The media [composition of the blood vessel wall] of the ductus arteriosus beneath the supporting nerves is thinner and has less elastic fiber formation than the elastic lamellar media of the adjacent aortic arches. The study shows that the vagus and recurrent laryngeal nerves are in a position to provide mechanical support to the ductus arteriosus during its development and that the morphology [or composition] of the media of the supported ductus arteriosus differs from that of the adjacent unsupported aortic arches. It is suggested that this local mechanical support may be the reason that the normal ductus arteriosus differentiates as a muscular artery and is therefore able to obliterate its lumen in postnatal life. Without such support the ductal media could develop the abundant elastic fibers characteristic of the normal unsupported aorta and pulmonary trunk and become an abnormal, persistently patent [or open] ductus arteriosus [not a good situation].
Developmental research shows how the RLN should be seen as a wise mechanism, designed to provide the right supporting conditions during a baby’s development for the ductus arteriosus to form correctly. There are multiple purposes for this nerve beyond activating the left vocal cord. Its length, location, and function all point to ingenious—not poor—design. The assertion that its position in our body is due to a remote fish ancestry is yet another colossal evolutionary blunder.
Sadly, this claim is much like the other arguments against an all-knowing Creator which have been proven false by science; such as so-called vestigial organs (supposedly useless organs) like the tonsils, appendix, and wisdom teeth, which all have function and purpose.
Blessings. Steven
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Dear @jwamshop,
Concerning your argument that the nerves of a mammal are on the wrong side of the eye:
In the eye, light-processing optimization requires 1) a mechanism to detect light, 2) a quick replenishment of that light-detecting mechanism to enable its extended use in large quantities of light, which tends to destroy tissue, 3) the removal of heat from the highly metabolic process before the heat destroys protein function, 4) the removal of heat from light focused on the retina, and 5) the prevention of light reflecting inside the eye after it passes through the photoreceptors.
To optimally balance these major factors so the retina can work properly - The photoreceptors must be inverted and embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium, a cell layer just outside the retina.
This vital tissue removes waste and helps remove heat from the rapidly regenerating receptors. Its black granule pigment prevents light-scattering. The choroid’s extensive network of blood vessels supports the high metabolic needs of photoreceptors and functions like a car radiator to absorb additional heat.
Researchers have known for decades that the “uninsulated” nerve fibers leaving the photoreceptors spread apart, making this layer light-transparent. In addition, retinal Müller cells conduct light from front to back like fiber optic cables. One paper described their remarkable properties: “The increasing refractive index together with their funnel shape at nearly constant light-guiding capability make them ingeniously designed light collectors.”This enables the light-sensitive molecules to detect light regardless of which way the retina is oriented.
One research study simply concludes, “The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images.”
Another account extolls the eye’s extraordinary performance: “Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period.”
Simply put, if our eyes were built according to evolutionists’ expectations, we’d all be blind.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit