The Impossibility Argument

[DrTesla]

I don't see why we have to let you off the hook on how the first lifeform evolved from non-life.

There's no hook to be let off of.  Evolution has to do with how life forms change over time.  It has nothing to do with abiogenesis.  Your use of the phrase "evolved from non-life" is a clear indication that you don't even know what evolution is.

Evolution does not explain the first lifeform on earth.  If you are saying nothing could be created by some external being, but you cannot explain how the first lifeform arose from non-life, you have not refuted your critics.   

But we are criticizing evolution across the board, not just this aspect.   The observation of Irreducible complexity is criticism that lifeforms become increasingly complex over time as the result natural selection on random mutations.     It doesn't seem probable that random mutations are going to lead to something of high complexity that even very intelligent scientists could not create with a goal of doing so.   That is at least as tough to believe as the existence of God.  Are you now prepared to concede that to me? 

[jaimehlers]

Ok, well it is related, even if it is not officially part of the evolution theory.  I don't think you are going to let me say that we don't have to explain how God was created if we believe there is a God and everything must have been created.   So I don't see why we have to let you off the hook on how the first lifeform evolved from non-life.    We have to hold ourselves to the same standards placed on us by our critics.

Jag's point is that you don't have to try to explain how life originated in the theory of evolution, because it's outside the scope of that theory.  Naturally, there does need to be a theory to explain the origin of life, but that theory is separate from evolution.  Meaning, if someone disproves that theory, it doesn't affect evolution.

It's the same reason that computer programmers separate their programs into methods rather than just throwing it all together into one long file.  Because if you find an error in a method, you just have to work with one method.  But if you don't have methods, you create a lot more work for yourself, because you have no easy way to find where the error is, and you have to go over the entire program until you do find it.

So, if your concern is the origin of life, don't talk about evolution.  That just confuses the issue, because evolution does not require a specific theory on the origin of life in order to be true.

[Foxy Freedom]

The car thing was an analogy to explain IC in lifeforms.

That is right, Darwin wrote his theory prior to DNA.  To me, it seems like you would have to understand DNA to submit a theory on the origin of life in an ostensibly scientific way.   

For many people,  the evolution vs intelligent design debate is really just a proxy war for atheist vs Christianity.   So there is some propaganda and people wanting their theory to be right to prove or not prove God.      A lot of people really fear the idea of a "creator" and let's face it is a scary concept.   

We need to make sure we are not letting our biases about the existence of a God  prevent us from being open minded on the evolution theory.   You can be an atheist and still think evolution is nonsense.

Don't use analogy, I understand the real thing, and so do many others on this site.

Are you just wasting everyone's time? Earlier you said DNA had nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is not about a proxy war on religion. In Britain where I am all Christians believe in evolution.

You have still not answered why you are arguing about a subject you know nothing about. There is no point in telling you anything about evolution if you are only going to argue about it. What matters here is your motives.

[magicmiles]

Speaking of the impossibility argument, its impossibly damn late here, what the hell am I still doing up? Goodnight! Play nice!

[Jag]

why can't a creator have created many beings with shared physical traits?

But a better answer turns the question back to you. Why on earth would one do so? This is where it always breaks down for me - if your hypothesis is right, then that looks like evidence of a creator that is deliberately trying to hide itself from it's creation. Why would it do so? Doesn't that point toward a creator that does not want to be acknowledged if it's going to such lengths to hide it's involvement?

Look at it this way: A master craftsman creates a series of fine furniture pieces over, say, a 6 day period.[1] He makes intricately carved chairs, tables, wardrobes, bookshelves, cabinets. The level of design was incredible, each article of furniture unique in its function and appearance. So intricate the design and so varied the features of these fine pieces of furniture that you would seriously struggle to ever look at them and realise that they were all from the one master craftsman. A justifiably proud man, the craftman guards against this threat to his renown by using the same teak in his construction, harvested from the same forest and growing nowhere else. His furniture is now easily recognisable as his.

I can't agree that similarities in all life is evidence of a creator hiding itself. Quite the opposite.

Edited to add: we might be talking about ID in different ways. I'm speaking more of the ID religious movement, and I think you are speaking more of your personal beliefs. Clarify?

Its correct to assume that I am always looking at things from my personal beliefs, which you know well.

Edited to add a bit more context at the start

1.	He was a hard worker. So hard, he really needed a rest the next day.

But this does nothing to explain why it would create the resulting confusion that multiple organisms with similar traits has created. That's the hiding I was referring to - it looks like contradictory evidence. God created everything (I grant that you, thankfully, are not trying to insist that change has not occurred), made little tweaks, improvements and upgrades periodically, then left humans to draw erroneous conclusions that would lead us to decide that God did not exist at all.

The only alternative is "blind faith" and you know my response to that. The absence of evidence is not a reason to accept something as true particularly when all the evidence actually does point to a different answer. If that's god's way, he's a tricky one with much in common with Loki from the Norse tradition, or perhaps Coyote in some Native American ones.

[One Above All]

DrTesla, I didn't want to do this, but it seems I have no other choice, if I want you to stop wasting everyone's time. Obviously, being a god, I could just smite you out of existence - heck, even wipe out your entire lineage from history - but I won't.
I hereby challenge you to a debate about evolution.

[naemhni]

I don't think the fossil records supports evolution at all.

First of all, that's not true, but even if it were, it would make no difference.  The DNA evidence alone is so overwhelming that it would be more than enough to prove that evolution were true even if we had no fossils at all.

I don't see how you prove evolution

How do you prove gravity?

even Darwinists basically say they know it happened but we can't prove it because it happened in the past

More proof that you are poorly informed on the subject: evolution did not "happen in the past".  Or, to be more specific, it did happen in the past, but it is also happening in the present; it is continuing today and will continue into the future.

and it is a very slow process.

So is radioactive decay, at least with some isotopes.  That doesn't mean we can't know it's true.

[DrTesla]

Ok, well it is related, even if it is not officially part of the evolution theory.  I don't think you are going to let me say that we don't have to explain how God was created if we believe there is a God and everything must have been created.   So I don't see why we have to let you off the hook on how the first lifeform evolved from non-life.    We have to hold ourselves to the same standards placed on us by our critics.

Jag's point is that you don't have to try to explain how life originated in the theory of evolution, because it's outside the scope of that theory.  Naturally, there does need to be a theory to explain the origin of life, but that theory is separate from evolution.  Meaning, if someone disproves that theory, it doesn't affect evolution.

It's the same reason that computer programmers separate their programs into methods rather than just throwing it all together into one long file.  Because if you find an error in a method, you just have to work with one method.  But if you don't have methods, you create a lot more work for yourself, because you have no easy way to find where the error is, and you have to go over the entire program until you do find it.

So, if your concern is the origin of life, don't talk about evolution.  That just confuses the issue, because evolution does not require a specific theory on the origin of life in order to be true.

All I am saying is if you can't prove that life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort,  then you have not ruled out a creator of some sort.   It isn't science to just assume the first lifeform  originated from non-life.   Until you prove otherwise, that did not happen.

[naemhni]

Evolution does not explain the first lifeform on earth.

Right, and that's my point: that is not a question that evolution addresses.  "The first life form on earth" is a question for abiogenesis, not evolution.  Why is this so hard for you to understand?

If you are saying nothing could be created by some external being

I don't see anybody here saying that.  I certainly didn't.

but you cannot explain how the first lifeform arose from non-life, you have not refuted your critics.

It is a perfectly legitimate answer to say, "We don't know yet, but we're working on it."

The observation of Irreducible complexity

Irreducible complexity does not exist, so no "observations" about it need to be addressed.

It doesn't seem probable that random mutations are going to lead to something of high complexity

This is an argument from ignorance, a fallacy that you commit very frequently.  I suggest you read about it and take it to hear so you might avoid committing it again in the future.

that even very intelligent scientists could not create with a goal of doing so.

There was also a time when "very intelligent scientists" could not create spacecraft capable of carrying man to the moon.  That doesn't mean that it was impossible for them to do so, or that they were stupid, or anything else like that.  It simply means that technology hadn't progressed yet to the point where they were able to do so.

That is at least as tough to believe as the existence of God.  Are you now prepared to concede that to me?

I'll concede that it's tough for you to believe it, yes.  For me, it's the other way around.

[Jag]

I don't think the fossil records supports evolution at all. 

When was the last time you looked?

All they do is speculate that because something kind of resembles something else it must have evolved from it.   And we know many species just kind of popped up out of the blue at the same time so doesn't seem like they evolved from anything.

Wrong. Where did you get this stuff?

I don't see how you prove evolution,  even Darwinists basically say they know it happened but we can't prove it because it happened in the past and it is a very slow process.   

Complete crap, that.
Please bring me a Darwinist to speak for themselves. I've never met one and in fact am not even certain I could explain what one is - I'd sure appreciate it if you would tell me what a Darwinist is, and provide an example.

That doesn't sound like science to me.   

Of course it doesn't "sound like science" to you. I'll wait for you to produce a Darwinist before trying to explain why that's the case.

[Jag]

All I am saying is if you can't prove that life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort,  then you have not ruled out a creator of some sort.   It isn't science to just assume the first lifeform  originated from non-life.

No, it's really not all you were saying. The ToE doesn't address the origins of life. This discussion would be more productive if you would would quit changing the subject.

[Aaron123]

All I am saying is if you can't prove that life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort,  then you have not ruled out a creator of some sort.   It isn't science to just assume the first lifeform  originated from non-life.

It's not science to "just assume" a super-being creator of some sort.  You need evidence for that sort of thing.

Even if we did assume a super-being created life on Earth, it just raises further questions.  Where did this being come from?  What created it?  What does it looks like?  Does it have DNA?  Does it reproduce?  Where is (or was) it located?


In short, a super-being wouldn't really answer the question of how life started.  It would only push back the "start date" a little further.

[jaimehlers]

Evolution does not explain the first lifeform on earth.

Nor will it.  Because evolution isn't about where the first lifeform on Earth came from.  Stop repeating yourself and pay attention.

If you are saying nothing could be created by some external being, but you cannot explain how the first lifeform arose from non-life, you have not refuted your critics.

Nobody here is saying that something else could not have created life on Earth.  The fact of the matter is that we don't know for sure how life came to be.  Yet.  That's why we're pursuing such theories as abiogenesis and panspermia.  We also aren't willing to just accept someone's declaration - without any evidence whatsoever - that it had to have been designed.

But we are criticizing evolution across the board, not just this aspect.

So what is that, the Royal We?  I'm not just making a snarky joke here.  Unless you're actually working with other people to criticize evolution, it isn't 'we'.  I don't mean just posting their arguments here, I mean actually collaborating with them.

The observation of Irreducible complexity is criticism that lifeforms become increasingly complex over time as the result natural selection on random mutations.

Incorrect.  The 'observation' of irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from incredulity, a rhetorical and logical fallacy.  It is nothing more than someone saying that since they can't imagine any way for something to have existed in a less complex form and still work, that it must have been designed that way, and that no less-complex forms can have existed.

However, this is disproved by the way things are actually designed.  Haven't you ever heard of computer program version numbers?  Those are successively more complicated versions of computer programs that are nonetheless functional.  As you progress backwards and get to the beta and alpha versions, you get programs that are less and less functional, but that are still actually functional.  So even if your 'designer' existed, it would have started with something simple and worked forwards to more and more complex stuff.  It wouldn't have simply made "eye 1.0", it would have made "eye 0.1.0" and "eye 0.1.1" and "eye 0.1.2", then "eye 0.2.0" and continued working upwards.  In other words, this "irreducible complexity" nonsense doesn't even fly in things that humans actually design.  It's just a fallacious attempt to argue against evolution made by people who don't really understand either evolution or design.

It doesn't seem probable that random mutations are going to lead to something of high complexity that even very intelligent scientists could not create with a goal of doing so.   That is at least as tough to believe as the existence of God.  Are you now prepared to concede that to me?

Until you actually understand how probability works, you have no business complaining because "it doesn't seem probable".

I mean, honestly!  You've been criticizing evolution nonstop even though you aren't knowledgeable enough about it to accurately judge whether your criticisms are even valid.  And now you're trying to act as if something being improbable means that it can't have happened, which is just flat-out wrong.

[DrTesla]

All I am saying is if you can't prove that life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort,  then you have not ruled out a creator of some sort.   It isn't science to just assume the first lifeform  originated from non-life.

No, it's really not all you were saying. The ToE doesn't address the origins of life. This discussion would be more productive if you would would quit changing the subject.

most of my comments have been based on IC and I've talked about the fossil records as well.   I think a conversation can be more productive if we don't limit ourselves to certain topics.   I think evolution is a more valid theory if you guys could prove that the very first lifeform originated through a freak of nature from non-life because then you have essentially ruled out creation in general.     But even if that did happen, Darwinian evolution doesn't really explain irreducible complexity  as the result of random mutations and natural selection so we would have to determine a new evolutionary pathway and mechanism.  Tell me where I am wrong.

[jaimehlers]

All I am saying is if you can't prove that life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort,  then you have not ruled out a creator of some sort.   It isn't science to just assume the first lifeform  originated from non-life.   Until you prove otherwise, that did not happen.

Nobody 'assumes' in the first place, except maybe people who don't agree with evolution so they have an easy target[1].  Evolutionary theory is not predicated on the idea that life had to originate from non-life, no matter what the opponents of evolution claim.

By the way, why should anyone waste their time trying to rule out a creator when nobody can provide actual evidence of this supposed creator to begin with?  The fact of the matter is that science works on positive evidence.  It uses actual observations and actual evidence to make theories.  So if you want people to take your idea about a creator seriously, then find some evidence that shows that just such a creator really existed.  What you cannot do, at least not if you want to be taken seriously, is say, "well, nobody's found a natural explanation, so why don't we just say that some supernatural creator did it?"

1.	This is called a straw man argument, another rhetorical and logical fallacy.  If you claim to care about logic, you should stop using such fallacies.

[DrTesla]

All I am saying is if you can't prove that life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort,  then you have not ruled out a creator of some sort.   It isn't science to just assume the first lifeform  originated from non-life.   Until you prove otherwise, that did not happen.

Nobody 'assumes' in the first place, except maybe people who don't agree with evolution so they have an easy target[1].  Evolutionary theory is not predicated on the idea that life had to originate from non-life, no matter what the opponents of evolution claim.

By the way, why should anyone waste their time trying to rule out a creator when nobody can provide actual evidence of this supposed creator to begin with?  The fact of the matter is that science works on positive evidence.  It uses actual observations and actual evidence to make theories.  So if you want people to take your idea about a creator seriously, then find some evidence that shows that just such a creator really existed.  What you cannot do, at least not if you want to be taken seriously, is say, "well, nobody's found a natural explanation, so why don't we just say that some supernatural creator did it?"

1.	This is called a straw man argument, another rhetorical and logical fallacy.  If you claim to care about logic, you should stop using such fallacies.

I'm not necessarily trying to prove a creator,  I am just asserting that given Darwin evolution cannot explained IC  PLUS the fact that you have not proven life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort  means that you cannot rule out a creator of some sort.   And again, if the very first lifeform was created, then why couldn't more lifeforms have been created, including humans?  That is why you should focus on demonstrating that life can come from non-life in some kind of chemical reaction.    If you think about it, that theory is kind of similar to the plot of Frankestein except Dr Frankensein had a dead body to work with so maybe some advantages in that.   LOL

[DrTesla]

Doesn't the symmetry that you see in lifeforms kind of indicate design and not random chance?

That is why I am fond of applying Occam's Razor to the origin of life, look for simple explanations and if lifeforms look they were designed , it was because they were.  Why is this not a legit way of looking at it? 

[jaimehlers]

I'm not necessarily trying to prove a creator,  I am just asserting that given Darwin evolution cannot explained IC  PLUS the fact that you have not proven life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort  means that you cannot rule out a creator of some sort.   And again, if the very first lifeform was created, then why couldn't more lifeforms have been created, including humans?  That is why you should focus on demonstrating that life can come from non-life in some kind of chemical reaction.    If you think about it, that theory is kind of similar to the plot of Frankestein except Dr Frankensein had a dead body to work with so maybe some advantages in that.   LOL

I just posted why irreducible complexity doesn't work as an explanation for things that humans actually design.  Please don't continue to use it as an argument until you can rebut mine.

I also have no reason to take your "well, if one thing was created, why could other things not have been created too?" argument seriously.  You haven't actually proven that life on Earth was created in the first place, so speculative reasoning about how other life-forms on Earth might have been created if the first one was is meaningless.  The fact is that we don't really know for sure how life on Earth came about - but I will put my trust in the people who are examining the real evidence and perform real experiments to try to find out over any number of people who simply speculate on some supernatural creator who might have done it instead.

[Jag]

All I am saying is if you can't prove that life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort,  then you have not ruled out a creator of some sort.   It isn't science to just assume the first lifeform  originated from non-life.

No, it's really not all you were saying. The ToE doesn't address the origins of life. This discussion would be more productive if you would would quit changing the subject.

most of my comments have been based on IC and I've talked about the fossil records as well.   I think a conversation can be more productive if we don't limit ourselves to certain topics.   I think evolution is a more valid theory if you guys could prove that the very first lifeform originated through a freak of nature from non-life because then you have essentially ruled out creation in general.     But even if that did happen, Darwinian evolution doesn't really explain irreducible complexity  as the result of random mutations and natural selection so we would have to determine a new evolutionary pathway and mechanism.  Tell me where I am wrong.

I'll make you a counter offer. Explain what the ToE actually says. I'll even accept a "cut and paste" from a source that is unbiased and non-religious in nature - in other words I'm looking for you to provide a scientific demonstration that you understand what you are arguing against. Until you can demonstrate that you know what you are arguing against there's no point in trying to "tell you where you are wrong" because so far you are wrong on practically every level.

And for the record, you have largely limited your arguments to natural selection specifically. That's only a portion of the means by which evolution occurs. This rather important snippet of detail is an important one that you seem to be completely unaware of.

[Jag]

Have you found me a Darwinian to discuss this with yet?  You continue to reference these entities without explaining what they are.

[DrTesla]

I'm not necessarily trying to prove a creator,  I am just asserting that given Darwin evolution cannot explained IC  PLUS the fact that you have not proven life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort  means that you cannot rule out a creator of some sort.   And again, if the very first lifeform was created, then why couldn't more lifeforms have been created, including humans?  That is why you should focus on demonstrating that life can come from non-life in some kind of chemical reaction.    If you think about it, that theory is kind of similar to the plot of Frankestein except Dr Frankensein had a dead body to work with so maybe some advantages in that.   LOL

I just posted why irreducible complexity doesn't work as an explanation for things that humans actually design.  Please don't continue to use it as an argument until you can rebut mine.

I also have no reason to take your "well, if one thing was created, why could other things not have been created too?" argument seriously.  You haven't actually proven that life on Earth was created in the first place, so speculative reasoning about how other life-forms on Earth might have been created if the first one was is meaningless.  The fact is that we don't really know for sure how life on Earth came about - but I will put my trust in the people who are examining the real evidence and perform real experiments to try to find out over any number of people who simply speculate on some supernatural creator who might have done it instead.

It is funny how you think a supernatural creator is crazy but you think life originated from non-life in some kind of freak of nature.  That doesn't sound like something that could have happened within the laws of nature and science.   I think we have to concede that both ideas, that of god and of spontenaous life, are hard to get our heads around.

[Foxy Freedom]

I'm not necessarily trying to prove a creator,  I am just asserting that given Darwin evolution cannot explained IC  PLUS the fact that you have not proven life can originate from non-life in a natural process of some sort  means that you cannot rule out a creator of some sort.   And again, if the very first lifeform was created, then why couldn't more lifeforms have been created, including humans?  That is why you should focus on demonstrating that life can come from non-life in some kind of chemical reaction.    If you think about it, that theory is kind of similar to the plot of Frankestein except Dr Frankensein had a dead body to work with so maybe some advantages in that.   LOL

Why are you asserting ANYTHING about a subject which you admitted you know nothing about?

There is no such thing as irreducible complexity.

One above All has challenged you to a debate in the formal debate forum.

[jaimehlers]

Doesn't the symmetry that you see in lifeforms kind of indicate design and not random chance?

No, because they aren't actually symmetrical even when they seem so.  For example, the right side of the brain and left side of the brain perform different functions.  And there's enough things that aren't symmetrical in organisms that it undercuts the argument.

That is why I am fond of applying Occam's Razor to the origin of life, look for simple explanations and if lifeforms look they were designed , it was because they were.  Why is this not a legit way of looking at it?

[wiki]Occam's razor[/wiki] is not about simplicity.  It is about assumptions.  Basically, it reads, "the explanation which makes the fewest number of assumptions is the most likely to be correct".  Thus, simple explanations, especially if they are overly simple, are ruled out by Occam's razor when they make more assumptions than complicated explanations.  For example, "God did it" is the simplest explanation of all, yet it's so full of assumptions that Occam's razor slices it to ribbons.

[jaimehlers]

It is funny how you think a supernatural creator is crazy but you think life originated from non-life in some kind of freak of nature.  That doesn't sound like something that could have happened within the laws of nature and science.   I think we have to concede that both ideas, that of god and of spontenaous life, are hard to get our heads around.

Did you read my argument about how irreducible complexity doesn't work as an explanation for things that humans actually design?  If you did not, then you should go do it rather than claiming that you know what I think.  Because, to put it bluntly, you don't know what I think and you shouldn't pretend that you do.

[DrTesla]

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another."49 - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d020411.html#sthash.3F4h34hW.dpuf

[Jag]

It is funny how you think a supernatural creator is crazy

... to you, sure.

but you think life originated from non-life in some kind of freak of nature.

Who said that?

That doesn't sound like something that could have happened within the laws of nature and science.

Which, so far, you don't seem to understand....

   I think we have to concede that both ideas, that of god and of spontenaous life, are hard to get our heads around.

Seriously, you should stop with the royal "we".  Just because it's beyond your ability or willingness to grasp what is being said here, that's no excuse to spread it over everyone else.
Edit: formatting

[Jag]

See more at:

Not until you address the hanging chads all over this thread first.

If this is supposed to be a reply to my request that you post something that explains what the ToE says, this is not what I asked for.

[Foxy Freedom]

Doesn't the symmetry that you see in lifeforms kind of indicate design and not random chance?

That is why I am fond of applying Occam's Razor to the origin of life, look for simple explanations and if lifeforms look they were designed , it was because they were.  Why is this not a legit way of looking at it?

How would life forms look, if they had evolved?

Simple explanations are for simple minds.

[jaimehlers]

British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: "None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another."49 - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/selection_and_speciation_why_d020411.html#sthash.3F4h34hW.dpuf

So, based on a single scientist's statements (I don't even know if they were peer-reviewed, let alone how accurate they are), you would conclude that he's 'proven' that speciation doesn't happen?

The problem is, science doesn't work like that, and it never has.  It's about finding out information and revising the knowledge base of science based on what we do find out.  A single person failing to find evidence of speciation doesn't mean a whole lot, in and of itself.  That's why we have things like peer review.  Not only that, but him not finding evidence of speciation does not therefore mean that someone must have designed it - that conclusion is based on a false dichotomy, another rhetorical and logical fallacy[1].

1.	for someone who claims to value logic so highly, you sure do use a lot of logical fallacies