Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 27298 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #783 on: October 27, 2013, 12:38:32 PM »
Macroevolution is not really a term - it is just evolution. However, obaserving evolution is a trifle hard as it takes a long, long time. We have some example, though of evolution into new species observed. Have a look here, for example
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12485
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #784 on: October 27, 2013, 12:41:44 PM »
No no no no...can't you see, people? You are all wrong! Forget your degrees and studies in the field of science, it doesn't matter at all. This guy has the truth and y'all have the lies!

It's as plain as the fly on the tip of his nose.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6688
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #785 on: October 27, 2013, 01:21:18 PM »
Thanks for the info on skin pigment. I understand how different skin colors evolved in response to environmental factors. My question there was more rhetorical. My specific question was asking how it was that two medium tan-skinned people produced one very black-skinned child, two light tan children and one dark tan child.

Clearly, the two parents must have been carrying the genes for all those other colors. Even though their own phenotype (physical appearance) did not show that they had those genes, a genetic analysis would have revealed this.

That is why looking at living creatures and fossils only gives part of the evolution story--the phenotype. Looking at DNA evidence is the clincher--it gives you the genotype. With DNA, we don't even need the fossils anymore, although fossils are wicked cool. It's like fossils are 25% of the evolution story and DNA is the other 75%. 

With DNA evidence, we can trace human ancestry back millions of years to the place where human beings diverged from other primates. We have found the place in the DNA where people and chimps differ, for example. We can trace whales and hippos back to their common land mammal ancestor.

One area of research that I am following is dog domestication-- how and when the dog became a separate animal from wolves, coyotes and foxes.  There is some fascinating work on how selecting personality traits that people prefer in animals (friendliness, docility, loyalty) actually changes how the animal looks! That is, when you mate the nicest foxes of each generation, over time you start to get a fox that looks more like a dog. A researcher in Russia is doing this.

The TOE says that you can never get a dog from a cat or a snake from a cow. There is no evidence of that. That would be magic, not science. Or religion, because god can do anything, even the impossible.  ;)

Now, then, when nature is doing the selecting, it is going to take a lot longer because nature does not have a goal of making a nice animal or a cute animal or a smart animal. Just an animal that survives and reproduces.  So nature produces ugly, mean, antisocial species like Komodo dragons, as well as lovely, friendly and sociable species like panda bears.[1]
 1. Both evolved in isolation, making them rare endemic species now endangered by humans, BTW.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6706
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #786 on: October 27, 2013, 02:31:32 PM »
What I can’t understand is why all these “Creationist” sites ignore the Bible:

Genetics

Ge:30:37: And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
Ge:30:38: And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
Ge:30:39: And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

(Basically, if you put animals next to striped sticks, you get striped animals -> what’s not to like? It explains everything and is obvious when you think about it.

Except of course, it isn’t obvious, so the “creationists” still believed creation and still believed why there are different skin colours:

The Curse of Ham:
Ge:9:20: And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard:
Ge:9:21: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent.
Ge:9:22: And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.

Ge:10:6: And the sons of Ham; [were] Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan.


Cush -> from Eastern’s Bible Dictionary:
Quote
Cush: black. (1.) A son, probably the eldest, of Ham, and the father of Nimrod (Gen. 10:8; 1 Chr. 1:10). From him the land of Cush seems to have derived its name. […] The term Cush is in the Old Testament generally applied to the countries south of the Israelites. It was the southern limit of Egypt (Ezek. 29:10, A.V. "Ethiopia," Heb. Cush), with which it is generally associated (Ps. 68:31; Isa. 18:1; Jer. 46:9, etc.)


This led to slavery of Africans justified by God Himself.

However, it was far clearer that God's genetics were a fantasy and a lie. How to explain it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design#Origin_of_the_concept

Quote
By 1910 evolution was not a topic of major religious controversy in America, but in the 1920s the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy in theology resulted in Fundamentalist Christian opposition to teaching evolution, and the origins of modern creationism.[2] Teaching of evolution was effectively suspended in U.S. public schools until the 1960s, and when evolution was then reintroduced into the curriculum, there was a series of court cases in which attempts were made to get creationism taught alongside evolution in science classes. Young Earth creationists promoted creation science as "an alternative scientific explanation of the world in which we live". This frequently invoked the argument from design to explain complexity in nature as demonstrating the existence of God.

See? In 1910, everyone was happy with Darwin’s explanation and peer reviewed scientific papers. It was common sense. Even Darwin’s grandfather, a fundamentalist himself, had seen that “like begets like.” All that happened was that Darwin, discovered the varieties of the same finch in the Galapagos Islands: isolated populations that had [shock-horror!] “evolved.”

Had the fundamentalists finally broken through and actually discovered something? Well, “No.”

Quote
Since the middle ages, discussion of the theological "argument from design" or "teleological argument", with its concept of "intelligent design", has persistently referred to the theistic Creator God. Although ID proponents chose this provocative label for their proposed alternative to evolutionary explanations, they have de-emphasized their religious antecendents and denied that ID is natural theology, while still presenting ID as supporting the argument for the existence of God.

Again, they had again failed to progress from the Dark Ages.

There has never, ever, been any proof of ID/IC. There has not been one single experiment. No observation has ever been made that would support the theory. However, there are countless of observations and experiments done in support of Darwinian evolution.

Educated scientist have now refused even to consider ID/IC, so stupid is it.

And it is not only living things that are affected by evolution: ideas are too. ID/IC has had 100 years to make a case… any sort of case… and has failed. It lies dying in a dirty garbage heap of ignorance and stupidity, unable to move but surrounded by people defending the indefensible urging the gullible to believe a lie.

A fitting end for an idea that was the product of a failed mutation – ID/IC proves Darwin right – ID/IC was unfitted for a world that had intelligence.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 02:37:53 PM by Graybeard »
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6688
  • Darwins +892/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #787 on: October 27, 2013, 03:04:43 PM »
I was with you right until the end, Graybeard. What do you have against AC/DC? I realize their music is not for everyone but, to say they are unfitted for a world that has intelligence is a bit harsh.....
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #788 on: October 27, 2013, 03:08:42 PM »
Examples of Macro-evolution (aka - just evolution): http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html)

Even though (DrTnutz) you will not understand it b/c you do not understand the science!
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #789 on: October 27, 2013, 04:19:36 PM »
Examples of Macro-evolution (aka - just evolution): http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html)

Even though (DrTnutz) you will not understand it b/c you do not understand the science!

Some of this "evolution examples"  involve polyploidy in plants which isn't evolution but a variety of the same species as the DNA doesn't change.  Here is a summary of polyploidy:

"Most multicellular organisms are ‘diploid’, having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, but sometimes organisms can have extra sets of chromosomes—this is called polyploidy.

Polyploidy is common in plants, especially in cultivated plants. Different species of coffee plant have 88, 66, 44, and 22 chromosomes. Note that they are all still called coffee. Some strawberries are octoploid, having eight sets of chromosomes rather than the original two sets, but they are still strawberries (they have very large leaves and fruit compared to normal strawberries).

A polyploid plant will usually not be able to breed with the parent species, and can consistently produce offspring with the same number of chromosome sets as itself.  Note that there is no new genetic information involved, just repetition of existing information. By analogy, if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, there would be no new information, just repetitious doubling of the existing information.

Chromosome duplication does not produce new traits. It creates bigger cells, and can produce bigger than normal plants, but does not produce new genetic traits, or the addition of new genes to the DNA. The DNA does not change. And for evolution (as in new species) to take place the DNA must change."
"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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12485
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #790 on: October 27, 2013, 04:24:02 PM »
If anyone wants to know he copied that from http://creation.com -- which in turn was copied from a paper edited in parts to say what they want it to say. This is what happens when you don't source your copy/paste.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #791 on: October 27, 2013, 04:33:29 PM »
If anyone wants to know he copied that from http://creation.com -- which in turn was copied from a paper edited in parts to say what they want it to say. This is what happens when you don't source your copy/paste.

-Nam

I just used the Google machine...it was from one called survivalistboards.com

Either the information is correct or is incorrect.  I am not trying to decieve but I doubt you know one way or another if it is corrrect or incorrect.    Plants are a lot different from animals given reproduction is asexual so there is some weird stuff that goes on with them that might seem like evolution into a new species.  But if it the same DNA , it isn't a new 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

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12485
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #792 on: October 27, 2013, 04:45:04 PM »
If anyone wants to know he copied that from http://creation.com -- which in turn was copied from a paper edited in parts to say what they want it to say. This is what happens when you don't source your copy/paste.

-Nam

I just used the Google machine...it was from one called survivalistboards.com

Either the information is correct or is incorrect.  I am not trying to decieve but I doubt you know one way or another if it is corrrect or incorrect.    Plants are a lot different from animals given reproduction is asexual so there is some weird stuff that goes on with them that might seem like evolution into a new species.  But if it the same DNA , it isn't a new species.



You still didn't source it or even research it to see it has been edited to fit their viewpoint. You can Google the original that doesn't state what you copy/pasted. This is what happens when you only get your information from biased sources. Which makes you biased but we already knew that.

You think we're biased but we're not. We research all point-of-views, including the one's we may not agree with, and then with all the information come to a conclusion. You, and those like you only research two: the one's that agree with you, or the ones you agree with. Wait, isn't that really just one...?

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #793 on: October 27, 2013, 04:56:31 PM »
See? In 1910, everyone was happy with Darwin’s explanation and peer reviewed scientific papers. It was common sense. Even Darwin’s grandfather, a fundamentalist himself, had seen that “like begets like.” All that happened was that Darwin, discovered the varieties of the same finch in the Galapagos Islands: isolated populations that had [shock-horror!] “evolved.”

Had the fundamentalists finally broken through and actually discovered something? Well, “No.”

Again, they had again failed to progress from the Dark Ages.

There has never, ever, been any proof of ID/IC. There has not been one single experiment. No observation has ever been made that would support the theory. However, there are countless of observations and experiments done in support of Darwinian evolution.

Educated scientist have now refused even to consider ID/IC, so stupid is it.

And it is not only living things that are affected by evolution: ideas are too. ID/IC has had 100 years to make a case… any sort of case… and has failed. It lies dying in a dirty garbage heap of ignorance and stupidity, unable to move but surrounded by people defending the indefensible urging the gullible to believe a lie.

The idea that we were designed because we look like we are designed is an idea that has been around forever and even Darwins like Richard Dawkins concede we look like we were designed.   But the modern intelligent design theory is only 25 years old and it is based on advanced knowledge of the cell which contains molecular machinery that functions much like machines in our lives like pumps, motors, etc.  Also advances in biochemstry.  So it is only fairly recently that irreducible complexity was seen at the molecular and biochemical level.  Thus intelligent design might sound familiar but it is a scientific observation unlike the previous iterations that were based on a casual observation. 

Regarding the "Darwin" finches, which he didn't even discuss in Origin of Species,  that was merely variation in finches due to natural selection.  The finches were larger beaks were selected  during a drought period.  Once the drought was over, finches with smaller beaks were selected because in general a larger beak was a disadvantage especially to the bird when it was young and small.  So there was no evolution from one species to another.  Yet another example of natural selection leading to variation within a species and nobody doubts there is gradual change in species as they adapt to their environment.

I want to make the observation that you have referenced religion numerous times on here, to include quoting Biblical scripture.   Yet you keep asserting that I and other intelligent design cheerleaders are the ones with a religious agenda, even though i have not quoted scripture or talked bout the book of Genesis.   You and others talk a lot about science and how we must prove things, but you have not proved that I am a Christian with a religious agenda on here.  The only way you could prove it, if it was true, would be if you had the ability to read minds, which I think we can agree has not evolved yet in our species.  LOL   So you should accept it when somebody tells you they are not Creationists....assume they are sincere if you have no proof otherwise.   If I was a Creationist I would haved talked about the Bible by now, and I would have gone posts on the religious themed threads on this forum, it would seem.   
It isn't some kind of vast Christian conspiracy on my part to talk about ID, and in my case, that has really been limited to the observation of IC in lifeforms, which doesn't require you to be an intelligent design advocate. 

I should point out there is no experiment that proves evolution.  They tried to do it with bacteria which reproduce quickly and thousans of generations can be examined for speciation and they don't see it.   Most of their "proof"  is asserting that one species looks similar to another ,  therefore one evolved from another, and they try to use fossil record which is somewhat limited to make this case.  But one species looking like another could easily be explained by an intelligent designer who made both, kind of like cars made by same car company look similar. 

I also should point out that Darwin's Origine of Species was not peer reviewed , it first appeared in a scientific journal of some sort but it wasn't peer reviewed.   It might have been peer reviewed later on but given he knew nothing about the cell and he basically argued the fossil record would evenutally prove him right,  his evidence amounted to "just so" speculation and conjecture about how species evolved and various body structures evolved. 
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 05:02:19 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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #794 on: October 27, 2013, 05:10:45 PM »

You still didn't source it or even research it to see it has been edited to fit their viewpoint. You can Google the original that doesn't state what you copy/pasted. This is what happens when you only get your information from biased sources. Which makes you biased but we already knew that.

You think we're biased but we're not. We research all point-of-views, including the one's we may not agree with, and then with all the information come to a conclusion. You, and those like you only research two: the one's that agree with you, or the ones you agree with. Wait, isn't that really just one...?

-Nam

I didn't source it out of laziness plus this is a post on the internet, not some kind of scientific dissertation for a thesis in college.   I've seen this information before on various websites....obviously most Darwin websites aren't going to point this out and those are only ones that you consider scientific.   I'll concede it is a type of evolution if it makes you happy.  The plants might be a little bigger and flowers might be a differnet color but given it is the same DNA that is just replicated,  it can also be argued it is just a variety of the same species.   As the article pointed,  coffee plants  plants have different number of chromosomes but they are not designated as different species by botanists.
This also doesn't happen much in animals and it is actually a bad thing when it does, according to my sources. 

If I am wrong about this you are free to post information that refutes it.  Even if it is true that this plant variation is a new species,  that doesn't refute the observation of irreducible complexity in cells,  meaning a system would become non-functional at once without one of it's parts, like a protein.   This is a scientific argument because biologists know what parts are needed for a system to function. 
"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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12485
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #795 on: October 27, 2013, 05:24:02 PM »
This is your problem DT,

You think all atheists are of one mind. We are not the Borg. We do not all agree on everything 100%. I have never read anything by Darwin so for you to tell me that I believe in Darwin Evolution is incorrect. Do I believe in Evolution? Yes. Is it the same as Darwin Evolution? I have no idea since I have never read anything by Darwin. Why then do I believe in Evolution then? Because the basic principals makes more sense to me than Creationism does.

Now, you believe in Creationism. I don't care. What I do care about is you thinking we are all of the same mind. What I do care about is you coming here stating we're wrong about something when your only understanding is from a biased standpoint.

See, most of us here know about Creationism because many of us here used to believe in it. You're saying we're wrong not from a science standpoint because you'd cite scientists (without a bias) that agree with you on your conclusions.

People here have cited both theological sources and non-theological sources to back up what they are stating combined. You just source one: the one that agrees with you, or the one you agree with.

That is when you lost this argument. And you'll get nowhere until you realize that. Which you won't because even when it's pointed out to you, like I pointed out what you posted, you ignore it and say you're right anyway.

You lost. Move on.

-Nam
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 05:26:09 PM by Nam »
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #796 on: October 27, 2013, 05:27:19 PM »
If anyone wants to know he copied that from http://creation.com -- which in turn was copied from a paper edited in parts to say what they want it to say. This is what happens when you don't source your copy/paste.

-Nam

I just used the Google machine...it was from one called survivalistboards.com

Either the information is correct or is incorrect.  I am not trying to decieve but I doubt you know one way or another if it is corrrect or incorrect.    Plants are a lot different from animals given reproduction is asexual so there is some weird stuff that goes on with them that might seem like evolution into a new species.  But if it the same DNA , it isn't a new species.

Tesla,

Plants are not asexual. Idiot why don't you read anything before making foolish comments?
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 05:29:35 PM 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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #797 on: October 27, 2013, 05:30:51 PM »
If anyone wants to know he copied that from http://creation.com -- which in turn was copied from a paper edited in parts to say what they want it to say. This is what happens when you don't source your copy/paste.

-Nam

I just used the Google machine...it was from one called survivalistboards.com

Either the information is correct or is incorrect.  I am not trying to decieve but I doubt you know one way or another if it is corrrect or incorrect.    Plants are a lot different from animals given reproduction is asexual so there is some weird stuff that goes on with them that might seem like evolution into a new species.  But if it the same DNA , it isn't a new species.


It's hilarious how you expose your own extreme biases (and ignorance) here. Instead of actually reading the article, educating yourself on the science, taking some courses on the subject, or generally trying to LEARN, you instantly turn to a knee jerk reaction. "It has to be wrong. So I'm going to cut/past from creastionist websites." This proves absolutely NOTHING for your case, and instead shows how utterly BIASED you are against anything that doesn't fit with your assumptions. In short, you are dishonest and clearly don't care about truth - turning instead to the pursuit of protecting your emotional investment in "God did it".
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 06:07:25 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #798 on: October 27, 2013, 05:36:16 PM »

I didn't source it out of laziness plus this is a post on the internet, not some kind of scientific dissertation for a thesis in college.   I've seen this information before on various websites....obviously most Darwin websites aren't going to point this out and those are only ones that you consider scientific.   I'll concede it is a type of evolution if it makes you happy.  The plants might be a little bigger and flowers might be a differnet color but given it is the same DNA that is just replicated,  it can also be argued it is just a variety of the same species.   As the article pointed,  coffee plants  plants have different number of chromosomes but they are not designated as different species by botanists.
This also doesn't happen much in animals and it is actually a bad thing when it does, according to my sources. 

If I am wrong about this you are free to post information that refutes it.  Even if it is true that this plant variation is a new species,  that doesn't refute the observation of irreducible complexity in cells,  meaning a system would become non-functional at once without one of it's parts, like a protein.   This is a scientific argument because biologists know what parts are needed for a system to function.


This is just more repeated nonsense. Your IC mantra was already refuted pages back by Jaime, and others. And yet you still continue to pontificate it here as if it carries any weight. It doesn't. Trying to be the Google/Wiki scholar isn't going to get you anywhere. It just shows your bias even more. Copy/pasting from websites is just a last ditch effort to save your ignorant assumption which (for some emotional reason) you won't stand to give up. 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #799 on: October 27, 2013, 05:37:25 PM »
Examples of Macro-evolution (aka - just evolution): http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html)

Even though (DrTnutz) you will not understand it b/c you do not understand the science!

Some of this "evolution examples"  involve polyploidy in plants which isn't evolution but a variety of the same species as the DNA doesn't change.  Here is a summary of polyploidy:

"Most multicellular organisms are ‘diploid’, having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent, but sometimes organisms can have extra sets of chromosomes—this is called polyploidy.

Polyploidy is common in plants, especially in cultivated plants. Different species of coffee plant have 88, 66, 44, and 22 chromosomes. Note that they are all still called coffee. Some strawberries are octoploid, having eight sets of chromosomes rather than the original two sets, but they are still strawberries (they have very large leaves and fruit compared to normal strawberries).

A polyploid plant will usually not be able to breed with the parent species, and can consistently produce offspring with the same number of chromosome sets as itself.  Note that there is no new genetic information involved, just repetition of existing information. By analogy, if a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, there would be no new information, just repetitious doubling of the existing information.

Chromosome duplication does not produce new traits. It creates bigger cells, and can produce bigger than normal plants, but does not produce new genetic traits, or the addition of new genes to the DNA. The DNA does not change. And for evolution (as in new species) to take place the DNA must change."

Tesla,

Idiot for pasting what you do not read or understand in this post.
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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12485
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #800 on: October 27, 2013, 05:38:29 PM »
More the idiot for posting an edited biased version of it.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #801 on: October 27, 2013, 05:39:52 PM »
I didn't source it out of laziness plus this is a post on the internet, not some kind of scientific dissertation for a thesis in college.

Nevertheless, this forum insists that forum members cite their sources.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the notion of "irreducible complexity by removal of parts" is a red herring. Cells are not built up like Lego models from raw materials like that. In mitosis, the daughter cells contain every structure that the parent did; and as already noted, that a body may cease to function by way of removal of a structure does not entail that it had no simpler ancestor. "Simpler" does not mean "one fewer structure". That's the faulty premise in the entire IC argument; and one which, despite the multitude of posts on this subject, you continue to miss (or, perhaps, deliberately ignore in order to prolong an argument well past its sell-by date; in which case, all you're doing is attention-seeking and the best thing for everyone else to do, perhaps, is to stop engaging with you).
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #802 on: October 27, 2013, 05:43:44 PM »

You still didn't source it or even research it to see it has been edited to fit their viewpoint. You can Google the original that doesn't state what you copy/pasted. This is what happens when you only get your information from biased sources. Which makes you biased but we already knew that.

You think we're biased but we're not. We research all point-of-views, including the one's we may not agree with, and then with all the information come to a conclusion. You, and those like you only research two: the one's that agree with you, or the ones you agree with. Wait, isn't that really just one...?

-Nam

I didn't source it out of laziness plus this is a post on the internet, not some kind of scientific dissertation for a thesis in college.   I've seen this information before on various websites....obviously most Darwin websites aren't going to point this out and those are only ones that you consider scientific.   I'll concede it is a type of evolution if it makes you happy.  The plants might be a little bigger and flowers might be a differnet color but given it is the same DNA that is just replicated,  it can also be argued it is just a variety of the same species.   As the article pointed,  coffee plants  plants have different number of chromosomes but they are not designated as different species by botanists.
This also doesn't happen much in animals and it is actually a bad thing when it does, according to my sources. 

If I am wrong about this you are free to post information that refutes it.  Even if it is true that this plant variation is a new species,  that doesn't refute the observation of irreducible complexity in cells,  meaning a system would become non-functional at once without one of it's parts, like a protein.   This is a scientific argument because biologists know what parts are needed for a system to function.

Tesla,

You sourced it out of ignorance, idiot. How can argue for or against something which you don't understand? Read about evolution before you argue against it.
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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #803 on: October 27, 2013, 05:45:01 PM »
According to Wikipedia, which you guys cite often from,  plants have both sexual and asexual reproduction.   But the sexual reproduction is not like sexual reproduction in animals because they don't have male-female sex partners.   To me, that isn't sexual but I guess it is based on what the DNA does. 

I am focused on science here, while you guys use rhetoric about creationist that and creationist this.  You basically want to discredit me by associating me with creationists rather than battle me in the arena of ideas re: irreducible complexity and other critiicsms of Darwin. 

I don't know if that survivalist website is a creationist website.   that might actually be stormfront type of people who believe in sotcking weapons for a future race war.   LOL   but their info on the plants seems legit.   I'm open to it being wrong though.   Another reason that plant example is wrong in Darwin's theory a species is supposed to evolve into two species and then those two species combine into one and they split into two and so on.  This duplicate chromosome plants are just direct descents of the same plant, there isn't two species splitting from the original species.

I can't see plants and animals evolving from the same common ancestor though, just way too differnent. 
"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 Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1441
  • Darwins +97/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #804 on: October 27, 2013, 05:56:11 PM »
According to Wikipedia, which you guys cite often from,  plants have both sexual and asexual reproduction.   But the sexual reproduction is not like sexual reproduction in animals because they don't have male-female sex partners.   To me, that isn't sexual but I guess it is based on what the DNA does. 

I am focused on science here, while you guys use rhetoric about creationist that and creationist this.  You basically want to discredit me by associating me with creationists rather than battle me in the arena of ideas re: irreducible complexity and other critiicsms of Darwin. 

I don't know if that survivalist website is a creationist website.   that might actually be stormfront type of people who believe in sotcking weapons for a future race war.   LOL   but their info on the plants seems legit.   I'm open to it being wrong though.   Another reason that plant example is wrong in Darwin's theory a species is supposed to evolve into two species and then those two species combine into one and they split into two and so on.  This duplicate chromosome plants are just direct descents of the same plant, there isn't two species splitting from the original species.

I can't see plants and animals evolving from the same common ancestor though, just way too differnent.

You're guessing and you're wrong. Idiot plants have male and female parts. Have you not heard of pollen? What do you think insects do on plants? Read about evolution before you waste people's time.
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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #805 on: October 27, 2013, 05:58:02 PM »
I didn't source it out of laziness plus this is a post on the internet, not some kind of scientific dissertation for a thesis in college.

Nevertheless, this forum insists that forum members cite their sources.

As has been pointed out numerous times, the notion of "irreducible complexity by removal of parts" is a red herring. Cells are not built up like Lego models from raw materials like that. In mitosis, the daughter cells contain every structure that the parent did; and as already noted, that a body may cease to function by way of removal of a structure does not entail that it had no simpler ancestor. "Simpler" does not mean "one fewer structure". That's the faulty premise in the entire IC argument; and one which, despite the multitude of posts on this subject, you continue to miss (or, perhaps, deliberately ignore in order to prolong an argument well past its sell-by date; in which case, all you're doing is attention-seeking and the best thing for everyone else to do, perhaps, is to stop engaging with you).

Well I think you are missing the point of IC.  It isn't just about removing 1 structure, it is the remaining parts then have no function.  Simpler means a slight decrease in the same function as the final system,  less efficient or less effective.   Nature needs a function to select that is advantageous for survival and there should be a gradual buildup in this function to the final system we call IC.     The IC system only becomes an advantage to the lifeform when all the various parts are there and able to interact with each other, and only then could it be selected by nature.   Darwin understood IC would break down his 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 median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #806 on: October 27, 2013, 06:02:05 PM »
The idea that we were designed because we look like we are designed is an idea that has been around forever and even Darwins like Richard Dawkins concede we look like we were designed.   But the modern intelligent design theory is only 25 years old and it is based on advanced knowledge of the cell which contains molecular machinery that functions much like machines in our lives like pumps, motors, etc.  Also advances in biochemstry.  So it is only fairly recently that irreducible complexity was seen at the molecular and biochemical level.  Thus intelligent design might sound familiar but it is a scientific observation unlike the previous iterations that were based on a casual observation. 

Here you are putting the cart before the horse again, and also acting as if "it looks like" means "it is!". But this is often not the case in science (as science very often discovers things which are NOT intuitive). Do things "look designed" in the cell because 'someone' designed them, or because we are from them and they reflect us in nature (naturally the ways things are)? The answer to scientific questions of this sort are not solved by making bald assertions about "It's impossible any other way!" (which is pure hubris based in ignorant arrogance), nor are they answered by positing a big mystery (one mystery in an attempt to solve another), such as the appeal to the supernatural. Such attempts have no explanatory power. They tell us absolutely NO useful information (just like claiming magic pixies did my laundry does nothing). You need explanations that allow you to make testable predictions (which evolutionary biology has done with overwhelming success) and has the power of explaining not just the "what" (you haven't even gotten there) but also the "where, why, and how".

Again, your perpetual use of the Argument from Incredulity fallacy shows that you don't really care about what's true. You just want to pacify your initial assumption.

I should point out there is no experiment that proves evolution.  They tried to do it with bacteria which reproduce quickly and thousans of generations can be examined for speciation and they don't see it.   Most of their "proof"  is asserting that one species looks similar to another ,  therefore one evolved from another, and they try to use fossil record which is somewhat limited to make this case.  But one species looking like another could easily be explained by an intelligent designer who made both, kind of like cars made by same car company look similar. 

Here you demonstrate, for the hundredth time, the fallacy of the Argument from Incredulity (along with the fallacy of False Analogy). Must we continually remind you of your irrational thinking? You cannot by any means compare living things to non-living things b/c non-living things do not reproduce and do not have the capacity to propagate genetic information into the future. The fact that you are willing to continually try this bullshit argument over and over shows, again, how dishonest you are and how you don't really care about truth.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 06:03:47 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12485
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #807 on: October 27, 2013, 06:07:26 PM »
round and round and round and round

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #808 on: October 27, 2013, 06:08:51 PM »

You're guessing and you're wrong. Idiot plants have male and female parts. Have you not heard of pollen? What do you think insects do on plants? Read about evolution before you waste people's time.

Foxy, you are conflating evolution with reproduction.    I was talking about evolution and if these duplicate chromosome plants are a new species or just a variation of the same.    I argued they are the same because the DNA is the same,,  just the new plant has repeated DNA. 

You are right about reproduction in plants.  I don't think of that as sexual though because I think about the mating process and obviolsy they can't move to do that.   LOL
"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 Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #809 on: October 27, 2013, 06:11:06 PM »
I am focused on science here, while you guys use rhetoric about creationist that and creationist this.  You basically want to discredit me by associating me with creationists rather than battle me in the arena of ideas re: irreducible complexity and other critiicsms of Darwin.

IC and ID are creationist propositions. The association is inevitable. I have tried to engage with you in what you call the "arena of ideas", but for some reason you appeared to be no longer returning my calls, so to speak. I wonder why.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11041
  • Darwins +285/-37
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #810 on: October 27, 2013, 06:17:19 PM »
<snip>
for some reason you appeared to be no longer returning my calls, so to speak. I wonder why.

Cowardice would be my guess. Same reason he's not replying to me.
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 #811 on: October 27, 2013, 06:19:59 PM »
I am focused on science here, while you guys use rhetoric about creationist that and creationist this.  You basically want to discredit me by associating me with creationists rather than battle me in the arena of ideas re: irreducible complexity and other critiicsms of Darwin.

IC and ID are creationist propositions. The association is inevitable. I have tried to engage with you in what you call the "arena of ideas", but for some reason you appeared to be no longer returning my calls, so to speak. I wonder why.

google "differences b/t creationism and intelligent design"

Creationism seeks to associate everything with the Bible.    Intelligent design is trying to establish  the biochemistry of life was designed.   That may lead to the implication of God but the God has nothing to do with the  biblical god.   Some people might make the connection.   You aren't really being scientific if you use a possible implication of a theory to try to disprove the theory itself.   Your logic is design iimplies there is a God therefore there is no design because there is no God.   The problem is you have not proved there is no intelligent design or God....you believe there isn't, which is fine, but it shouldn't influence your objectivity.   If something was designed, it was designed.
"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