Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 23935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6342
  • Darwins +740/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #203 on: October 20, 2013, 10:30:43 PM »
On the subject of intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Wouldn't an intelligent designer be irreducibly complex? He/she/it couldn't possibly have evolved.

That is a valid observation but you are conflating an implication of the theory, that there is a "intelligent designer" aka God,  with the  IC theory itself.   If irreducible complexity demonstrates that Darwian evolution via random mutations and natural selection is false, as Darwin himself proposed, then if we prove IC occurs,  then the Darwiani evolution theory must be false regardless if we do not know who could have created our creator.    But it also doesn't mean that there couldn't have been some other natural process outside of Darwin's proposed mechanism  to account for irreducible complexity.

Anything is possible. Do keep in mind that we are saying that evolution is the best explanation we have so far. Your desire to diss is into oblivion and replace it with slack-jawed awe is failing because you have nothing to show for these ideas except your amazement. Yea, if you want to ignore all of the scientific responses to tails and moths and such, you can justify your stance. But keep in mind that people who remain voluntarily stupid about scientific issues sort of undermine the intelligent design thing by demonstrating ignorant design instead.

Quote
I am curious,  do people on here deny that any structure or system can be irreducibly complex,  or do you only deny that Darwinian evolution can't result in in IC systems?

I doubt that you're curious about anything, but I'll answer anyway. You are using strong language when you use the word "deny". Because denial isn't what we're about. We are looking at all available evidence, and seeing nothing that indicates that any function of any living thing is irreducibly complex. Were we to find evidence of something that stumped science to such a degree that other explanations needed to be found, then we would shrug out shoulders and see where such an inquiry went.

But right now you are reading the claims of a small group or two (we can tell because you are bringing up the old standard arguments, like moths and tails and eyes, and nothing new, because they have nothing new), and you are acting like they are authorities because you agree with what they say. In another recent post you brought up the good Dr. Behe. Yes, he makes claims that you think are wonderful. But the percentage of scientists who disagree with evolution and think that things like ID and IC, or creationism in some cases, are legitimate, is about 3% of all scientists. Including Dr. Behe. You are choosing to stick with the 3% for whatever reason, while the rest of us are quite happy with the hundreds of thousands of scientists who keep finding things that back up the claims of evolution.

At one point, the very ID-ish Discover Institute bragged that it had the signatures of 700 scientists who supported ID. In response, the National Center for Science Education got over 1200 scientists named Steve or Stephanie to sign a petition in support of evolution. Easily. It was done as a joke, but if your side is outnumbered by Steve's, you should rethink your position.

You need to realize that just because your WOW-Meter goes off every time you look at a rotating flagellum, that doesn't mean that the only explanation is the one you like best. You also need to realize that saying "Darwinism" with lots of phlem flying out of your mouth is sort of a dead giveaway you have major prejudices against science that doesn't say what you want it to say.

We don't deny anything. We are open to other possibilities, if they can be shown to have validity. To this point, none have. You need to go find something that is actually irreducibly complex, not something that you were told is IC, by people with no interest in the truth. I always tell the flood believers that all they have to do is go out and find a human fossil amongst all the dinosaur bones, or an older species dinosaur buried in shallower ground than a younger species under it. That would disprove the geologic record and go a long ways towards showing that the flood actually happened. In your case, you need to go find some biological mechanism that indeed is IR. So IR that even we agree with you. But this made up crap isn't going to cut it.

Oh, and based on your last post, if you want to disprove what you spittingly call Darwinism, you also have to disprove all the science that has been done since his. The guy was coming up with this stuff over 150 years ago, and he ended up being wrong about some of the stuff that came up later (like Lamarckism) but he didn't have the scientific tools that we have now. He came up with an idea that explains pretty much everything we see today. He didn't bat a thousand, but he batted pretty high, and the scientists following him have built an incredibly strong case for evolution. The fact that you don't like it is not quite enough to overturn the whole thing.
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #204 on: October 20, 2013, 10:39:16 PM »


Many of the arguments are much more advanced then your average person can understand with no knowledge of DNA and genetics and biochemistry so they could be saying a lot of false things but it could sound good.

They have not proven how the bacteria flagellum and eye  evolved unless speculation counts now.

So why do you pretend to understand evolution?
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #205 on: October 20, 2013, 10:39:51 PM »
I don't accept that God created the confusion. Multiple organisms with similar traits suggests commonality of origin and the bible explains that commonality.

First, welcome back and I appreciate your avatar that reminds us all of David HollandWiki.

Next, it is the degree of commonality, isn't it? Dogs weren't always dogs. Horses not always horses Whales were land-dwellers. There is somewhere on the site, that huge picture of the evolutionary tree - Yes, it is stylised but it wasn't plucked from thin air.

I think we have to agree that, when life originated it was pretty basic but it has had a lot of time to adapt by fortunate changes to be able to exploit food sources - and it has done.

the degree of commonality isn't hugely relevant to the point I'm trying to make, and I am about the least qualified person I know to be able to discuss the intricacies of adaptation. I am a Science dunce.



Before there was confusion and now we can't deny that the confusion has been lifted and the phrase "evolutionary advantage" is known to us all. You can't say that the evolutionist has all the "dirty pictures."

I'm not at all certain that evolutionary theory was driven by confusion. Isn't it truer to say that a lot of scientific discovery has come about by people wanting to better understand how the created world worksed? And in the process, a lot has been discovered about these processes, and gradually the belief has grown that the processes originated naturally, not supernaturally. This is where the conflict begins

Your dirty picture analagy is amusing but I don't feel that it fits this particular discussion very well.
 
Anyway, if the Bible is to be believed the earth's flat and a flood covered it, and nobody believes that.

I'll let that one go through to the keeper for fear of edging to slip. I just don't have the scientific base to get into it beyond my personal convictions.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #206 on: October 20, 2013, 10:44:31 PM »


Many of the arguments are much more advanced then your average person can understand with no knowledge of DNA and genetics and biochemistry so they could be saying a lot of false things but it could sound good.

They have not proven how the bacteria flagellum and eye  evolved unless speculation counts now.

So why do you pretend to understand evolution?

Darwin did not understand DNA and genetics because scientists had not uncovered that yet.   He also just assumed that structures in lifeforms were all reducibly complex  based on this ignorance of molecular biology.    By your logic, he could not pretend to understand evolution yet millions of people who subscribe to his theory to this day.    It does seem like a bit of confirmation bias how everything in DNA/ genetics arena just somehow supports Darwin's theory when he knew nothing about DNA.   That is some good luck right there.   :)

I don't think anybody on here is a WIzard of Smart on DNA and genetics and biochemistry.   SOme of you have been citing examples of variation withing a species, which nobody disputes,   with speciation  yet they say I don't know anything.    I think on a general level,  we can see the logic of the irreducible complexity argument and how it presents a problem for the Darwin evolutionary theory and again,  Darwinists have admitted both directly and indirectly that it presents a problem.   

In my opinion, if you have really studies biology, you should be in awe of how complex the human body or any organism and you would think it impossible that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2013, 10:48:37 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Darwins +175/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #207 on: October 20, 2013, 10:48:40 PM »
My point is, please don't try to tell me that this is the best some "intelligent designer" could do, to leave so many 'bugs' in humans and not making any real effort to do anything about them.

I wasn't making the point that an intelligent designer would necessarily make all things perfectly, rather that an intelligent designer may theoretically be  better placed to do this than any human designer. It would of course vary based on the actual intelligence of the intelligent designer. Or it might even vary based on a combination of the intelligent designers intelligence and cockiness/confidence.

You and most people on the thread know what I actually believe, of course, so I don't need to bore you with a discussion on why things aren't in fact perfect.
The 2010 world cup was ruined for me by that slippery bastard Paul.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #208 on: October 20, 2013, 11:04:50 PM »


In my opinion, if you have really studies biology, you should be in awe of how complex the human body or any organism and you would think it impossible that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection.

Your opinion is of no importance because you don't understand the subject.
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6342
  • Darwins +740/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #209 on: October 20, 2013, 11:13:05 PM »
In my opinion, if you have really studies biology, you should be in awe of how complex the human body or any organism and you would think it impossible that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection.

My bold

We know what your opinion is. But your opinion doesn't count. My opinion doesn't count. It is my opinion that I should never have to die, and that I should get to remain 35 forever. The latter worked for a about year, over a quarter of a century ago. Its been downhill ever since.

Opinions are fine. We all have them. But they are hardly proof of anything.

And "think it impossible"? Crap, most everything I see seems impossible. The size of the universe, the age of our planet, weather patterns, chemical reactions, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, that some people think that brussels sprouts are edible. But thinking that something is impossible doesn't make it go away.

You don't like what Darwin said. Do you think that the biologists and others whose work supports evolution are any less capable than chemists, medical researchers, geologists, physicists, astronomers, etc.? Do you think that the study of evolution is some big conspiracy, aimed at something dangerous, or is it just a bunch of wrong-thinkers who have banded together to make your life miserable?

Science has responsible responses to each of the IC and evolution issues you have brought up. Answers that are consistent with the rest of science. I'm sorry that you don't like them. Because you wouldn't believe how much more pleasant life is when you don't have to expend energy on pretense.

Edit: for clarity
Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #210 on: October 20, 2013, 11:33:34 PM »
In my opinion, if you have really studies biology, you should be in awe of how complex the human body or any organism and you would think it impossible that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection.

My bold

We know what your opinion is. But your opinion doesn't count. My opinion doesn't count. It is my opinion that I should never have to die, and that I should get to remain 35 forever. The latter worked for a about year, over a quarter of a century ago. Its been downhill ever since.

Opinions are fine. We all have them. But they are hardly proof of anything.

And "think it impossible"? Crap, most everything I see seems impossible. The size of the universe, the age of our planet, weather patterns, chemical reactions, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, that some people think that brussels sprouts are edible. But thinking that something is impossible doesn't make it go away.

You don't like what Darwin said. Do you think that the biologists and others whose work supports evolution are any less capable than chemists, medical researchers, geologists, physicists, astronomers, etc.? Do you think that the study of evolution is some big conspiracy, aimed at something dangerous, or is it just a bunch of wrong-thinkers who have banded together to make your life miserable?

Science has responsible responses to each of the IC and evolution issues you have brought up. Answers that are consistent with the rest of science. I'm sorry that you don't like them. Because you wouldn't believe how much more pleasant life is when you don't have to expend energy on pretense.

Edit: for clarity

I don't think Darwinism is a conspiracy, I think it is conjecture that is not supported by fact and isn't logical when you think about the probabliy that random events would result in highly complex lifeforms with billions of complex parts and processes. 

It hasn't made my life miserable.

I could use this kind of empty rhetoric and direct it at you , replacing evolution with intelligent design.  Do you think it is about making your life miserable  or a conspiracy, etc?    So you could stop wasting time with this kind of generic rhetoric that don't even attempt to refute me and in a civil way.   

People with true intellectual curiousity don't shout down people for theories that go against the conventional wisdom.  In fact, almost all the famous scientists in history went against the conventional wisdom and that is why we know them by name.   People like Behe are needed because there are already scores of people trying to support evolution,  so it is good if somebody is out there looking for alternative explanations.    A good scientist wants his theories to be challenged,  in fact, he relishes in it and the opportunity to explain his theories and he doesn't look down on people for this.

Evolution is one of these topics where people say there is a consensus of scientists whosupport it,  thus  it is settled science  despite no proof of cross species evolution.    Science isn't up to a vote b//c then things like the earth is flat would still be around. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4826
  • Darwins +556/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #211 on: October 20, 2013, 11:33:52 PM »
Didn't you make the point that intelligent design should have been designed to account for the need to repair various things, like human designs?  You are just assuming that the human body has no way of repairing itself but I think things like the immune system kind of dispute that, and I think I read that somehow DNA or the RNA (I know very little about DNA so don't cruxify me on this) can repair genes that are out of sequence,  or something like that.   That sounds like a built in repair process if it is true.
Actually, I brought up the point that we design machines to be taken apart and put back together for, among other things, repair and replacement.  Also upgrades and simple maintenance.  But really, the basic point was that they could be taken apart because they had to be put together in the first place.

Yes, the human body does have the ability to heal itself to a degree, to maintain itself to a degree, etc.  But that isn't the same thing as what I was referring to.  Even if we eventually build self-repair and self-maintenance functions into machines of the future (and we will, almost certainly), that won't eliminate the need to be able to take a machine apart and put it back together again.  To be able to reduce them to basic components and then put them back together again so they'll function properly.  You can't do that with a human body.

Quote from: DrTesla
I didn't make my observations about the complexity of the human body to prove intelligent design in that comment, but only to point out that intelligent design does not mean there are no errors ever, it is speaking to the complexity of the structures/processes and how mulitiple things have to work together to sustain life.  If you think about all the number of processes and systems that must fulfill their function to sustain life, then you begin to be amazed at how there are not more genetic flaws lead to various disorders / diseases.
Naturally, intelligent design doesn't mean that something is without mistakes.  See the Ford Pinto for a perfect example of spectacularly bad "intelligent" design.  But the mistakes and flaws we see in organisms are those that fit with them having evolved naturally, rather than what we'd expect based on our experience fixing flaws in human designs.  That is to say, things that were necessary at an earlier stage of evolution, and thus got conserved (and spread to various descendants), but aren't necessary now, but aren't detrimental enough to wipe themselves out of the gene pool.

Quote from: DrTesla
Isn't the clotting mechanism after you cut yourself  kind of a built in repair process?   Your bones fuse bake together after you break them.
Yep, but both are things that would happen in natural evolution, for the simple fact that organisms that did not have them would be much less likely to survive long enough to reproduce.

Quote from: DrTesla
The fact we have brains is the biggest repair mechanism of them all because that is how we discover cures for disease, etc including brain diseases (hopefully, in the future).
Oh, for crying out - the human brain is not a repair mechanism.  The human brain is heuristic - it has the ability to learn and improve itself.  That does not make it a "repair mechanism".  Indeed, the human brain is the one organ in the body which doesn't possess any real capacity for self-repair.

Quote from: DrTesla
My point isn't to prove intelligent design here,  it is to  make a logical case  that Darwin's theory of natural selection coupled with random mutations could not lead to irreducible complexity.     YOu keep trying to grade me on the false premise that I am not proving intelligent design but I am not even trying to.   I am trying to disprove Darwinism.
Okay, stop and think about that for a moment.  Your goal is to disprove 'Darwinism' (I assume you mean evolutionary theory) with something that you not only haven't proven and that nobody has proven, but that you aren't even interested in trying to prove.  Do you not see the basic, fundamental problem with your argument?

Science is about using observations to come up with workable explanations for why things are.  Trying to falsify evolutionary theory is one thing (I may not agree with you, but it is your prerogative), but trying to do so with something you aren't sure is accurate and that you aren't willing to take the time and effort to find out whether it is?  That doesn't fly; it's neither scientific nor logical to disprove something without evidence that you're sure of, and the way it sounds, you're not only not sure about intelligent design and irreducible complexity (aside from the claim that they're logical, which has nothing to do with whether they're valid or supported by evidence), you don't particularly care if they are either.

Science is about finding things that are supported by reality and then trying to explain why that is.  It is not about trying to claim that something isn't supported by reality while using 'evidence' that you aren't even sure is accurate.  That is why you're finding such a cold welcome here.  What, did you think that just because you thought intelligent design and irreducible complexity made sense to you, that they must be the way things actually happened?  What we think is true very often has no bearing on what actually is true.

Why do you think scientists have to spend so much time and effort learning to overcome their own biases?  It's because those biases often lead them to make serious mistakes in reasoning.  That's the lesson you need to spend some time contemplating, and if the only thing you come away from this whole discussion with is that you can't trust what you think is right unless you check it against reality, then you will have accomplished something very meaningful.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4826
  • Darwins +556/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #212 on: October 20, 2013, 11:48:28 PM »
I don't think Darwinism is a conspiracy, I think it is conjecture that is not supported by fact and isn't logical when you think about the probabliy that random events would result in highly complex lifeforms with billions of complex parts and processes.
Look, just stop for a moment and think about what you're saying.  Do you really think a conjecture that isn't supported by fact and isn't logical would have survived for the 150+ years since Darwin originally came up with the theory of evolution?  Do you really think that the biologists who have used evolutionary theory for all that time wouldn't have recognized that it was merely conjectural, that it wasn't supported by evidence?  Because that's what you're saying here.  That the people who disagree with you are so stupid and ignorant that they were and are incapable of noticing these so-called 'flaws' in the theory of evolution.

Haven't you realized that if it really were nothing but unsupported, illogical conjecture, it never would have lasted long enough to become a theory in the first place?  That's how science works.  The only things that last long enough to be called theories are the things that are well-supported by facts, observations, and experimental evidence.  There is no way that evolution would have gotten any traction whatsoever in science if it were this unsupported illogical conjecture you seem to think it is.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #213 on: October 20, 2013, 11:56:35 PM »


I don't think Darwinism is a conspiracy, I think it is conjecture that is not supported by fact and isn't logical when you think about the probabliy that random events would result in highly complex lifeforms with billions of complex parts and processes. 



Earlier in the thread you said Darwinism was a proxy war, now you don't think it is a conspiracy.

You said DNA had nothing to do with evolution, then you said DNA was necessary to understand evolution.

You said you know nothing about evolution, but you criticise people who know more than you do.

At one moment you say you could be wrong, elsewhere you tell everyone what "must" be the answer.

I gave you an explanation about the evolution of the eye, then you said the subject had not been discussed.

Have you considered that the reason you don't think evolution is logical, is because you don't think in a logical way yourself?

At the moment I am not sure if you are purposely dishonest (which I assumed above) or you have an erratic mentality. Do you have any compulsive habits such as locking the door ten times by any chance?

« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 12:49:35 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #214 on: October 21, 2013, 08:04:25 AM »
It does seem like a bit of confirmation bias how everything in DNA/ genetics arena just somehow supports Darwin's theory when he knew nothing about DNA.   That is some good luck right there.   :)

Or instead of "luck" it could be that Darwin read the evidence available to him very well and got it right!
It seems a bit mean and underhand for you to undermine Darwin and evolution in the very same sentence as you admit the evidence from different fields does support the same conclusion.  Are you somehow saddened or diminished by that trend - that it all ads up?  Why?

I think on a general level,  we can see the logic of the irreducible complexity argument and how it presents a problem for the Darwin evolutionary theory and again,  Darwinists have admitted both directly and indirectly that it presents a problem.   

Please name some of these "Darwinists" and give us the opportunity to read what they actually said.  I've not read any "Darwinists" in despair over any problem of complexity.  From what I read they relish complexity - they love to figure it out.   


In my opinion, if you have really studies biology, you should be in awe of how complex the human body or any organism and you would think it impossible that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection.

You are right to be in "awe", and wrong to be thinking any of us here are not in awe.  I find it a little insulting actually.

Here you've used the terms "unguided processes" and "natural selection" in the same sentence to describe how you think the theory of evolution works.  You've contradicted yourself  :police:  Do you see that?  Can you now please find the humility to admit you have it wrong ... so your mind can be unlocked to learn something?

Not only do you not understand the theory of evolution, you are also demonstrating a lack of understanding of the basic concepts of probability theory.  Your statistics is shoddy.  You are thinking that all the "billions of complex parts" had to come together in one roll of the dice.  That's not the correct application of statistics to this problem.  What you have in evolution is thousands, even millions, of opportunities to test and reject or add single improvements. The probability of adding each incremental improvement is enormously high!  That's exactly why evolution WORKS!  Evolution is micro-evolution.

Dawkins wrote (words to the effect) that if you confront a shear cliff face from the bottom it might seem impossible to climb - but if you walk round the back of it up the gentle slope you can easily get to the top taking one little step at a time.  This is what the fossil record reveals about speciation - sum up all the fossils that have plugged the so-called "missing links" and you have a clear progression.  It has been shown thousands of times over - so much so that it's almost boring.  And this is also exactly what genetic sequencing confirms.

Of course you are completely free to carry on denying complexity and speciation through evolution, no real problem for anyone there, science will plod on without you. But there is one sad part - that your version of "awe" is flawed.  Impoverished for lack of knowledge.  You're like a grown up refusing to let go of a belief in the tooth fairy because you can't figure out how those dollar coins appeared while you slept.
Git mit uns

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1717
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #215 on: October 21, 2013, 09:05:23 AM »
<snipped for length>
Quote
I don't accept that God created the confusion.
Well technically, neither do I.
Quote
Multiple organisms with similar traits suggests commonality of origin
Yes, it certainly does...
Quote
and the bible explains that commonality.
in what way does the Bible explain it? I'm honestly not sure what you are referring to and trying not to make any assumptions without input from you.
Quote
Dissatisfaction with that explanation (at risk of over-simplifying mans thirst for knowledge) has led to alternate explanations.
Actually, I don't think that's how it happened at all. I think it was the result of observations, over a long period of time, of how the world works, which led to seeking better explanations. You could potentially present the argument that those observations led to the search for explanations that fit the observations, but I don't think you'll have much success selling the idea that it was dissatisfaction with the biblical explanation that started the search.
Quote
The alternateb explanation is now in conflict with the first, but only because we went looking for an alternate. So who created the confusion?
People who wanted to know how the world works. Lucky for us that they did, or we'd still treat sickness with leeches and exorcisms. The evidence is there for anyone who wants to examine it for themselves.

Like here: http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution
And here: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence

A lot of (easy to understand for non-science people) information is available at both links. You're welcome to sat goddidit, but I find the scientific evidence compelling, mostly because, well, it's actual evidence.
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1717
  • Darwins +182/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #216 on: October 21, 2013, 09:34:48 AM »
DrT - You're trying to disprove natural selection. And you've been shown repeatedly why you cannot do so.

Are you at all familiar with selective breeding, used by ranchers and farmers all over the planet? Breeding for specific traits that they want to be more prevalent in their herds? The exact same process, but with no intervention from humans - natural selection. Breeding occurs, traits are passed on - this is basic biology. If selective breeding works (and it does) then what's the disconnect in your brain that makes you believe that natural selection is impossible?

Do you understand that constraints on mating (limited stock to mate with for instance) lead to a weaker herd? If a wolf herd, for example, gets isolated from any new members, eventually the herd will die off entirely, because there is no variation in the genetic material, and weaknesses breed true along with strengths. Look: http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/ and here: http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html . They are debating if new breeding partners should be brought in, or if the wolves should be allowed to die off - and the consideration is due to human intervention disrupting the natural migrations in the first place.

Did you bother to actually read any of the posts from noodsforme written to you about evolution? If so, you would have a better grasp of how wrong you are, and why I can say that with a great deal of confidence.

You're arguing against something with a metric sh!t ton of evidence to back it up. You don't understand what you are arguing against, because you showed up with an agenda (to win an online argument about irreducilbe complexity) and you were completely unprepared to find debaters who know the subject better than you do. I don't know where you got the idea, but I suspect one of your god's representatives held a class of some sort, or had a very engrossing sermon on the topic, and you thought you could take on a group of people who you have been led to believe are lacking in intelligence.

Looks like you were wrong on a number of points.

Edit:clarifying who I was speaking to
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 10:12:09 AM by Jag »
My tolerance for BS is limited, and I use up most of it IRL.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6606
  • Darwins +522/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #217 on: October 21, 2013, 10:08:03 AM »
In my opinion, if you have really studies biology, you should be in awe of how complex the human body or any organism and you would think it impossible that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection.


0/10 - see me after class. It is clear that you have not been listening at all.
Please read this before you do: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25452.msg575555.html#msg575555

Here is the corrected version:

In my opinion, if you have really studied biology, you should be in awe of how complex begin to understand the human body or any other organism and you would think it impossible realise that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes has, in fact, resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection, such as we see in all living organisms.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 10:12:15 AM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #218 on: October 21, 2013, 11:03:10 AM »
In my opinion, if you have really studies biology, you should be in awe of how complex the human body or any organism and you would think it impossible that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection.


0/10 - see me after class. It is clear that you have not been listening at all.
Please read this before you do: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25452.msg575555.html#msg575555

Here is the corrected version:

In my opinion, if you have really studied biology, you should be in awe of how complex begin to understand the human body or any other organism and you would think it impossible realise that such a complex body with billions of complex parts and processes has, in fact, resulted  from an unguided process featuring random mutations and natural selection, such as we see in all living organisms.

Ok, I am confused why you "edited" my comments there but that doesn't seem to change the meaning at all.   

Was that a contrived conversation with a Creationist or was that real?  I'm not sure if it is legit for Darwin evolution people to put words in other people's mouths.

It appears to me that you want to reduce my arguments to Creationism which is what Darwin evolution theory people tend to want to do.    My focus is irreducible complexity and how it seems improbable that an unguided process of natural selection coupled with random mutations  leads to complex parts. 
You are conflating a possible implication of a theory with the theory itself.   I am not trying to say IC must prove God, or that the fact the human body is a complex machine with billiions of complex processes required to sustain life  must prove there is a God.  I am saying that it tends to cast doubt on neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory as the origin of life and we need to consider other natural mechanisms, or even an intelligent designer, depending on your comfort zone.   

If seems like if you start out with the pre-conclusion that there cannot be an intelligent designer or "God" , then you aren't truly approaching it a scientific way.  But nobody has every said  IC  proves there is a God,  all it does is present an obstacle to the traditional evolutionary theory.   
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #219 on: October 21, 2013, 11:15:55 AM »
DrT - You're trying to disprove natural selection. And you've been shown repeatedly why you cannot do so.

Are you at all familiar with selective breeding, used by ranchers and farmers all over the planet? Breeding for specific traits that they want to be more prevalent in their herds? The exact same process, but with no intervention from humans - natural selection. Breeding occurs, traits are passed on - this is basic biology. If selective breeding works (and it does) then what's the disconnect in your brain that makes you believe that natural selection is impossible?

Do you understand that constraints on mating (limited stock to mate with for instance) lead to a weaker herd? If a wolf herd, for example, gets isolated from any new members, eventually the herd will die off entirely, because there is no variation in the genetic material, and weaknesses breed true along with strengths. Look: http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/ and here: http://www.isleroyalewolf.org/overview/overview/at_a_glance.html . They are debating if new breeding partners should be brought in, or if the wolves should be allowed to die off - and the consideration is due to human intervention disrupting the natural migrations in the first place.

Did you bother to actually read any of the posts from noodsforme written to you about evolution? If so, you would have a better grasp of how wrong you are, and why I can say that with a great deal of confidence.

You're arguing against something with a metric sh!t ton of evidence to back it up. You don't understand what you are arguing against, because you showed up with an agenda (to win an online argument about irreducilbe complexity) and you were completely unprepared to find debaters who know the subject better than you do. I don't know where you got the idea, but I suspect one of your god's representatives held a class of some sort, or had a very engrossing sermon on the topic, and you thought you could take on a group of people who you have been led to believe are lacking in intelligence.

Looks like you were wrong on a number of points.

Edit:clarifying who I was speaking to

Ok but isn't selective breeding, which I think is also called artifiical selection,  just leading to variation within a species?  I don't think there is cross species evolution taking place there.   Nobody denies natural and artificial selection can produce variation with a species.   I think that was well understood before Darwin proposed that natural selection coupled with random mutations could lead to cross species evolution.   

THis is not really related but it seems like selective breeding or artificial selection (if that is the right term for it) is much more efficient than natural selection in producing a beneficial change within a species because it is planned,  there is a goal in mind beforehand. 

I've never pretended to be an expert on anything.  I am not trying to prove anything,  I am just stating what I think about the topic.   I don't think this issue is going to be decided by people talking about it on the internet so why be so serious about it.   Just pretend we are in college  in our dorm rooms and we are just talking about stuff.     I would have to be getting paid to want to prove anything  and I would need to go back to college to study biochemistry and genetics, etc.     I read one of these scholarly papers by Behe last night dealing with something about cellular proteins and it was like trying to read a foreign language.   
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 11:17:39 AM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #220 on: October 21, 2013, 11:20:48 AM »
...how it seems improbable that an unguided process of natural selection ...

We are struggling with the word: "unguided".

Natural selection is a non-random process that shapes a gene pool towards greater fitness. That is actually a form of guiding.
The survival test of the environment is a brutal guide - with amazing results.
Git mit uns

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1327
  • Darwins +95/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #221 on: October 21, 2013, 11:22:10 AM »


I've never pretended to be an expert on anything.  I am not trying to prove anything, I am just stating what I think about the topic.   I don't think this issue is going to be decided by people talking about it on the internet so why be so serious about it.   Just pretend we are in college  in our dorm rooms and we are just talking about stuff.     I would have to be getting paid to want to prove anything  and I would need to go back to college to study biochemistry and genetics, etc.     I read one of these scholarly papers by Behe last night dealing with something about cellular proteins and it was like trying to read a foreign language.

Really? Did you not say you were you trying to prove Darwin was wrong, a moment ago?

I am sure you will pretend to be an expert in your following posts.

I am trying to disprove Darwinism.   
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 11:31:21 AM by Foxy Freedom »
Neither Foxy Freedom nor any associates can be reached via WWGHA. Their official antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10913
  • Darwins +283/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #222 on: October 21, 2013, 11:24:10 AM »
You know, I (and others) would stop bringing up this debate if you just said "Yes, One Above All, I wish to debate you", or "No, One Above All, I do not wish to debate you".

DrTesla, I will keep smiting you for ignoring this, and I advise my fellow members to do the same every time you ignore them.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #223 on: October 21, 2013, 11:27:19 AM »
...how it seems improbable that an unguided process of natural selection ...

We are struggling with the word: "unguided".

Natural selection is a non-random process that shapes a gene pool towards greater fitness. That is actually a form of guiding.
The survival test of the environment is a brutal guide - with amazing results.

It means it was not pre-planned, it just happens in nature.

I thought some neo-Darwinists had begun to drop the survial of the fitness aspect of the theory to some degree.  I haven't had time to research that in more detail. 

But, nobody disputes that natural selection occurs with in species. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12235
  • Darwins +269/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #224 on: October 21, 2013, 11:30:01 AM »
What mechanism do you propose to prevent accumulated changes from culminating in a different species?
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12181
  • Darwins +654/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #225 on: October 21, 2013, 11:32:58 AM »
My focus is irreducible complexity

Hi.  Your focus is misplaced.  Irreducible complexity is a fiction imagined by creationists with no basis in fact.  This has been explained to you several times, yet you persist.  You admit you are no expert, yet when people who have a much better grasp of this topic than you refute your points, you argue rather than update your beliefs.

Why?  What is wrong with you?  Are you even willing to consider that IR is wrong?


Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #226 on: October 21, 2013, 11:33:27 AM »
It means it was not pre-planned, it just happens in nature.

Why do you have a problem with this?  When the machinery is so elegant and well understood?
Git mit uns

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #227 on: October 21, 2013, 11:33:41 AM »
You know, I (and others) would stop bringing up this debate if you just said "Yes, One Above All, I wish to debate you", or "No, One Above All, I do not wish to debate you".

DrTesla, I will keep smiting you for ignoring this, and I advise my fellow members to do the same every time you ignore them.

You posted a Nastygram next to the negative Darwin (which could be considered a Behe perhaps? :) )   that essentially wished sterilization upon me.    I wish to respond to as many people as I can because people have different points and many of them are logical points so it isn't fair for me to jsut debate one person on here.   I think for the most part I've responded to everybody's points but there might be incidences that somebody makes a point that I have no considered and I might not have a good response to it until I "research" stuff a little more.    If somebody makes a point that I don't respond to and people see it as a good point, they are free to take my lack of a response as evidence that I lost on that point and advantage Darwin.   That is fair enough.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #228 on: October 21, 2013, 11:38:17 AM »
It means it was not pre-planned, it just happens in nature.

Why do you have a problem with this?  When the machinery is so elegant and well understood?

I'm not sure what your point is.  I don't have a problem with natural selection coupled with random mutations leading to irreducible complexity.   I just don't think it does based on the previous observations that have been discussed.    Again, I haven't ruled out other unguided non-pre planned natural processes as the solution to IC.

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6342
  • Darwins +740/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Hide and Seek World Champion since 1958!
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #229 on: October 21, 2013, 11:39:41 AM »
DrT

Let me try it this way. You are saying that you recognize that genetic variation within a species occurs. What do you think keeps a species variation limited so that the offspring can continue to procreate only with others of the same species? If millions of years are available to create variation, what forces stop those changes from being so drastic that they prevent the resulting critters or plants from mating with others of the original species? In other words, what is it the keeps new species from being developed by the process?

Here is the dictionary definition of a species: a group of animals or plants that are similar and can produce young animals or plants : a group of related animals or plants that is smaller than a genus.

If variation is possible, and we both say that it is, what keeps that variation limited? So that millions of years later all offspring from the original are still of the same species? What limits all variation to things like fur color or whatever and never touches physical differences that would make interbreeding with the original animal impossible?

We have fossil evidence that the ancestors of hippos and whales split from a single species and went on their merry way, some becoming big blundering mammals with legs and such floating around in the rivers of Africa, others became swimming mammals in the oceans. Complete with tiny and useless vestigial legs in their tails. You think that is impossible. Why? Where tdo the limits you are claiming come from?

For reference to the hippo/whale thingy, see this: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_03

Not everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're all entitled to mine though.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 10913
  • Darwins +283/-37
  • Gender: Male
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #230 on: October 21, 2013, 11:43:59 AM »
You posted a Nastygram next to the negative Darwin (which could be considered a Behe perhaps? :) )   that essentially wished sterilization upon me.

Wrong.
I just said not to reproduce. You'd be doing the world a favor if you followed my advice.

<snip>

I'll take that as a "no". I also take it you have a serious problem with answering questions. I hope you're never in the witness stand. You'd be thrown in jail for contempt in seconds.
The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
We choose our own gods.

A.K.A.: Blaziken_rjcf/Lucifer/All In One.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #231 on: October 21, 2013, 11:50:08 AM »
My focus is irreducible complexity

Hi.  Your focus is misplaced.  Irreducible complexity is a fiction imagined by creationists with no basis in fact.  This has been explained to you several times, yet you persist.  You admit you are no expert, yet when people who have a much better grasp of this topic than you refute your points, you argue rather than update your beliefs.

Why?  What is wrong with you?  Are you even willing to consider that IR is wrong?

yes, I am willing to consider it is wrong but I don't see how natural selection plus random mutations  accounts for IC.   If somebody can describe how it works then i am happy to change my mind on it.  I'm not wed to any theory.   

Are you sure you understand what IC is and why these scientists think it presents a problem for Darwin evolutionary theory? 

Is anybody here truly an expert on this stuff?   I think we are all pretty much laymen on it.   I've researched it more than your average person who doesn't think much about these kinds of topics on his or her own in their free time.   I am essentially trying to summarize arguments of scientists like Behe who are qualified to talk about these subjects.   If I have mischaracterized his arguments in any way, let me know.

I think trying to conflate Creationism with intelligent design is a debate trick.   I made this point before, but the Creationist piggyback on the intelligent design scientists,  because they think there is a certain implication of the theory,  that there is a God.    They care about that implication of the theory but the intelligent design people still have to make scientific arguments to support the theory itself.     Behe makes the point that a lot of scientists wanted to dispute the Big Bang Theory because they thought the implication of the theory would be that there is a God,  even though there was scientific evidence of the Big Bang.   I think those scientists even tried to prevent the big bang from being discussed in science books.

We shouldn't let a possible implication of a theory which might seem like nuts prevent us from considering the theory itself.  That is a what I call a false or artificial constraint.

"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

"I wish it was men who got pregnant b/c we would squirt out these babies and go about our business.  We don't have be divas on this stuff."  DrTesla