Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 32217 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1690
  • Darwins +112/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #812 on: October 27, 2013, 06:26:18 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 are out of your depth. Can you not see that you do not understand the subject? It does not matter if you think of it as sexual or not. If male and female plants are involved in combining DNA, it is sexual.
The Foxy Freedom 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 Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #813 on: October 27, 2013, 06:26:31 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.

We are going around in circles.
Firstly, I understand what the notion of IC is. I misspoke when I said "irreducible complexity by removal of parts"; I meant to say "irreducibly complexity as total loss of functionality by removal of parts". Brain ran ahead of typing fingers. It happens sometimes.

And when I used the term "simpler" I am referring of course to an ancestor organism that is in some way less functional. "Slight decrease in the same function", in the case of one function, may be one value of "simpler" as far as the organism is concerned, but it is not the only one.

That's the thing. Systems are part of organisms, which can include features that are no longer required due to an improvement in a system that previously required it. It is the organisms that evolve, not specific systems. The improved system may look IC if you discount the now-redundant feature, but it does not in fact fail to have a precursor, so the central argument of IC - that an IC system could have no precursor in nature - fails, and IC is a red herring argument from start to finish.

We've already done this, and I illustrated it with a simple simulation, but that was the post you decided to ignore.

What Darwin understood was that systems that could not have a precursor in nature would break his theory. Despite the claims of IC, it does not establish what it claims to establish - and it's not even established that any given system is irreducibly complex.
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Deus ex Machina

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3029
  • Darwins +23/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • non-cdesign-proponentsist
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #814 on: October 27, 2013, 06:28:22 PM »
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.

The ID movement is creationism in a mock lab-coat. Anyone who knows the history of the ID movement knows this for an absolute fact.

Do not try to kid me. See that tag under "Gender" to the left of this? Google "cdesign proponentsists". Then come back and tell me how creationism and intelligent design don't really have anything to do with one another.

Quote
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.

My likes or dislikes are neither here nor there. I am under no illusion that they alter what reality is. Nor should you be.

Quote
Your logic is design iimplies there is a God therefore there is no design because there is no God.

You are mistaken. It is not. And I would thank you not to put words into my mouth.

Quote
The problem is you have not proved there is no intelligent design or God....

I don't need to. Such untestable propositions remain speculative. I have no animus against people entertaining such speculations; but I draw the line when people (a) try to insert such untestable speculative propositions into science where they don't belong, or (b) talk unsubstantiated crap, often based on misrepresentations and lies, about how XYZ is impossible in nature.

Quote
you believe there isn't, which is fine,

Presumptuous.

Quote
but it shouldn't influence your objectivity.

Also presumptuous.

Quote
If something was designed, it was designed.

Well, that's beautifully circular.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 06:39:36 PM by Deus ex Machina »
No day in which you learn something is wasted.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13027
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #815 on: October 27, 2013, 06:33:44 PM »
DT,

Intelligent Design is the Christian's politically correct name of Creationism; it's their way of attempting to get Creationism taught in public schools again.

It's a way for the proponents of ID to guise it from being religious by attempting to take all Biblical viewpoints from it but in the end, they seem to fail at even that.

-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: 1690
  • Darwins +112/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #816 on: October 27, 2013, 06:40:29 PM »
Tesla,

Can you not see that your spamming on this site is damaging your cause? The more you write the more ridiculous you look. Any reader is going to laugh at your posts.
The Foxy Freedom 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 #817 on: October 27, 2013, 06:41:00 PM »

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.


And like a child you continually attempt the same Argument from Incredulity fallacy, while at the same time committing a second fallacy called Shifting the Burden of Proof - two more examples of why your assertions fail. You are the one positing "intelligent design" as some "implication". The burden of proof is on you - not us. And you haven't met that burden. You just keep making arguments from ignorance/incredulity over and over, acting like we won't notice. But we do.


GO EDUCATE YOURSELF: http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
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 #818 on: October 27, 2013, 06:45:26 PM »
DT,

Intelligent Design is the Christian's politically correct name of Creationism; it's their way of attempting to get Creationism taught in public schools again.

It's a way for the proponents of ID to guise it from being religious by attempting to take all Biblical viewpoints from it but in the end, they seem to fail at even that.

-Nam

Ok, well this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.  Dr. Behe and others clearly are experts in biochemistry and DNA.   Darwin himself said IC structures/systems would cause his theory to break down.   I don't see anything wrong with at least talking about the IC aspect of it in classrooms.  The teacher doesn't have to assert that IC proves anything,  just summarize the observation an IC would become non-functional one when one part is removed and thus how did nature have any benefiical trait to select up to the system observed in the lifeform. 

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.   They will probably hear the theory at some point outside of class so trying to shelter them from it seems pointless.      Regardless, criticisms of Darwin theory should be allowed in science class b/c challenging theories is part of science.

THe origin of life isn't some kind of foundational scientific principle that people need to know to be scientists or engineers.  Peoplw with all variety of beliefs about origine of life and species   become scientists/engineers/  pharmacists, medical doctors, etc.    So is it science or is it not regarding intelligent design is irrelevant in terms of careers.
"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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13027
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #819 on: October 27, 2013, 06:46:38 PM »
Conspiracy theory? Really? Are you skeptic under another name?

-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 #820 on: October 27, 2013, 06:48:05 PM »
Tesla,

Can you not see that your spamming on this site is damaging your cause? The more you write the more ridiculous you look. Any reader is going to laugh at your posts.

How can I damage the cause, or help it.   I'm not trying to persuade anybody here,  I am just telling you what I think.   If I am wrong, the sun will still come up tomorrow.   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

Online shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1965
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #821 on: October 27, 2013, 06:54:31 PM »
.....  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.

Dr. Tesla,
          What are your own beliefs about a timeline for intelligent design?  How old do you think the earth is?  Why? What have you used to base your belief on as far as the age of our planet?

edit:  my bold in the quote
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #822 on: October 27, 2013, 06:55:21 PM »
Conspiracy theory? Really? Are you skeptic under another name?

-Nam

Many Christians  believe evolution theory is legit,  they say God can create us thru evolution and there is no conflict with the Bible. 

So seems odd you are painting this as an atheist vs Christian war because many of the Christians are on your side or at least not opposed.   They will believe in God no matter what,  because they take in faith.     You also assume every Christian cares if ID is taught in school or not which I think is a dumb assumption.   They take their own kids to church and whatnot so it isn't like the kid isn't exposed to the other stuff already..   

In that school board trial,  the school was already teaching ID in the class, and it was atheists parents who sued to prevent it from being taught.   I think most on here have presented it the opposite, as parents trying to get it taught in class.   Dr. Behe and others were asked to come defend it as science at that point by either the school or parents who thought it should be.   
"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 jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #823 on: October 27, 2013, 06:58:10 PM »
this is incorrect.  Neutral mutations are passed on but neutral mutations would not lead to gradual change because they are not helpfu to the lifeforml.   Neutral essentially means they have no impact on the status quo.
Actually, gradual change doesn't require only 'helpful' mutations.  It simply requires mutations that persist, and thus are available to be acted on by other mutations.  What you mean to say is that neutral mutations don't have a meaningful individual impact on the status quo.  But if you have enough small changes, they can add up to big ones - even if none of the changes are particularly meaningful on their own.  Much like how if you collect enough pennies, you can eventually get enough money to buy a car - it just takes a long time and a lot of pennies.

If you get enough neutral mutations stacked together, they can add up to a significant change even if none of them were significant in and of themselves.  And all that's required at that point is that the significant change gives the organism some survival or reproductive advantage.

That's why you can have critical organs, like the heart or the lungs, develop incrementally.  It doesn't matter if those systems were nonfunctional for a while, as long as the organism had something else which did the job well enough in the meantime.  For example, a small enough organism could presumably live without a heart or lungs, instead absorbing oxygen directly through its skin and having that intake of gas provide the equivalent of a pneumatic pump through the blood vessels.  Such an organism would be able to survive without a heart or lungs, but if the species eventually developed a blood pump (heart) and/or internal oxygen chambers (lungs), it would have a decided advantage over others of its species, and would thus be more likely to reproduce and pass on those new organs to its descendants.

Afterwards, it would probably start to lose the generalized systems that allowed it to survive before it developed the more specialized organs, because mutations which affected the ability of those systems to function would no longer be lethal and result in the death of the organism.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #824 on: October 27, 2013, 06:58:19 PM »
.....  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.

Dr. Tesla,
          What are your own beliefs about a timeline for intelligent design?  How old do you think the earth is?  Why? What have you used to base your belief on as far as the age of our planet?

edit:  my bold in the quote

How old the earth is irrelevant to me and to the issue of ID.   If something was designed, then it was designed.  At what point it was designed doesn't matter in reference to the question of was it designed.

The idea is to establish design first.   Then we look at the implications of that.  It is like a flow chart.  Step by step. 
"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 shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1965
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #825 on: October 27, 2013, 07:07:03 PM »
Is it irrelevant?   If intelligent design is factual, don't you wonder when human beings were designed?  A million years ago?  3000 years ago?  10,000 years ago?  650 million years ago?  What if we can't establish design first?  Shall we go on?  Should we give up on a flow chart and evolution if we cannot get past biogenesis?   Then when was biogenesis?  Should we have started with that? 
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #826 on: October 27, 2013, 07:12:43 PM »
Is it irrelevant?   If intelligent design is factual, don't you wonder when human beings were designed?  A million years ago?  3000 years ago?  10,000 years ago?  650 million years ago?  What if we can't establish design first?  Shall we go on?  Should we give up on a flow chart and evolution if we cannot get past biogenesis?   Then when was biogenesis?  Should we have started with that?

my opinion is you should prove biogenesis to help make the case for natural processes leading to various species.  If life can originatte from non life on its own,  then who is to say unguided random events  can't lead to complex systems like the immune system and reproductive system and blood clotting cascade, etc.   That seems like magic to me though. 

lol

P.s.  i don't see how we prove when the earth was formed and so on.  It is just a guess in the end.   
« Last Edit: October 27, 2013, 07:14:27 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

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6753
  • Darwins +817/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #827 on: October 27, 2013, 07:15:44 PM »
If something was designed, then it was designed.

And if it wasn't designed, it wasn't designed. It seems to me (You're always saying that, so I thought I'd mirror your thought process in an effort to get through to you), anyway, it seems to me that things aren't intelligently designed. It seems to me that everything is sort of haphazard and stuff.

Your problem is that you want stasis in an unstable world. You don't think things could go from species to species because you haven't seen it happen, so it must not be true. You don't want to take into consideration how long millions or years are. You don't want to give any thought to why things would bother staying the same with all that DNA mutation stuff going on. You want everything to be neat and tidy and obvious and most of all, you want it to seem to you like it makes sense.

It seems to me that any intelligent designer would also have had to evolve. It couldn't just poof into existence without any reference points and then start designing things. It would have had no experience. At least not the first time around. Explanations given by physicists and biologists satisfy me for the time being. I would like to know more, just like you would, but I prefer going with the versions of reality that match the reality I see, experience and learn about. Not the one I would have to make up to go along with your versions of it.

Sexual reproduction does not require movement, but you don't like that you so redefine it for your own convenience. But that typifies your overall view of the world. It has to "seem" to you, and if it doesn't, then it can't be true. It seems to me that you have an ego that can't possibly fit in your body. Which means you aren't too intelligently designed. End of story.

Oh, and your insistence on tying together biogenesis and evolution is yet another example of your ego in action. You want it to be your way, then you'll be willing to talk about it. But again, if it doesn't "seem", then it doesn't count for you.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Online wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1997
  • Darwins +85/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #828 on: October 27, 2013, 07:16:29 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.   

Reported for repeated violations of forum rules. Proper attribution of one's sources is all the more important on the internet, but given your demonstrated inability to examine your own assumptions and claims, it's unsurprising you don't find that important.

This isn't your forum alone though, and you agreed to abide by its rules when you became a member. I advise you to review those rules and start acting more responsibly. Assuming you want to stick around and do more than troll.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13027
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #829 on: October 27, 2013, 07:18:59 PM »
Conspiracy theory? Really? Are you skeptic under another name?

-Nam

Many Christians  believe evolution theory is legit,  they say God can create us thru evolution and there is no conflict with the Bible. 

So seems odd you are painting this as an atheist vs Christian war because many of the Christians are on your side or at least not opposed.   They will believe in God no matter what,  because they take in faith.     You also assume every Christian cares if ID is taught in school or not which I think is a dumb assumption.   They take their own kids to church and whatnot so it isn't like the kid isn't exposed to the other stuff already..   

In that school board trial,  the school was already teaching ID in the class, and it was atheists parents who sued to prevent it from being taught.   I think most on here have presented it the opposite, as parents trying to get it taught in class.   Dr. Behe and others were asked to come defend it as science at that point by either the school or parents who thought it should be.   

DT,

I'm not painting anything as anything. That's your viewpoint, not mine. The only Christians on the side of Evolution are mainly Catholic, and that's only because the Holy See stated it was but not in the same viewpoint as you're beloved "Darwin Evolution" (yours because because you labeled it such here) because what defers is: they believe Biblegod did it. An "Intelligent Designer" did, even one of their saints (Assisi, I believe) delved into that aspect. So don't say we're all on the same side when it comes to Evolution because we're not.

No, I do not assume "all Christians are for ID being taught in school", that's your broad assumption of what I said, which was ID is a guise of Creationism by Christians. Not the same thing. Stop adding to my words.

Is Behe your boyfriend? You seem to have a mancrush on the guy.

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

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online shnozzola

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1965
  • Darwins +110/-2
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #830 on: October 27, 2013, 07:23:54 PM »
That seems like magic to me though.

Magic.  Biogenesis seems like magic.  But intelligent design doesn't.  Hmmm.

P.s.  i don't see how we prove when the earth was formed and so on.  It is just a guess in the end.

I guess it is a guess.  I'm sorry if I have wasted your time.
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #831 on: October 27, 2013, 07:28:23 PM »
DT,

I'm not painting anything as anything. That's your viewpoint, not mine. The only Christians on the side of Evolution are mainly Catholic, and that's only because the Holy See stated it was but not in the same viewpoint as you're beloved "Darwin Evolution" (yours because because you labeled it such here) because what defers is: they believe Biblegod did it. An "Intelligent Designer" did, even one of their saints (Assisi, I believe) delved into that aspect. So don't say we're all on the same side when it comes to Evolution because we're not.

No, I do not assume "all Christians are for ID being taught in school", that's your broad assumption of what I said, which was ID is a guise of Creationism by Christians. Not the same thing. Stop adding to my words.

Is Behe your boyfriend? You seem to have a mancrush on the guy.

-Nam

nah, my mother and my grandparents are/were Baptists and they said God used evolution to create us.  It isn't just a Catholic thing and I would think Catholic would be more opposed to evolution given they are hardline on contraception and whatnot.  Who knows.

I would probably toss the Bible, if I was a preacherman,  and start laying it down on irreducibly complexity in lifeforms.   Maybe sneak the Bible in on the backend after you suckered them in with IC.   LOL

Your conspiray theory has no proof.   You clear don't like Christians very much and I think you see them as a nefarious bunch.    I don't see how a scientist like Behe observing something is so complex that Darwin evol can't account for it is a theological argument but to each his own, I guess. 

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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13027
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #832 on: October 27, 2013, 07:33:19 PM »
DT,

You really need to learn to read what people write, and not skim: I said:

"That's your viewpoint, not mine. The only Christians on the side of Evolution are mainly Catholic,"

See that? I didn't say "just Catholic", I said "are mainly Catholic" I didn't disregard the minor protestant sects who believe in Evolution nor individual Christians.

You did that by stating something different to what I said.

Learn to read all that one says, or fuck off.

-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 #833 on: October 27, 2013, 07:43:19 PM »
this is incorrect.  Neutral mutations are passed on but neutral mutations would not lead to gradual change because they are not helpfu to the lifeforml.   Neutral essentially means they have no impact on the status quo.
Actually, gradual change doesn't require only 'helpful' mutations.  It simply requires mutations that persist, and thus are available to be acted on by other mutations.  What you mean to say is that neutral mutations don't have a meaningful individual impact on the status quo.  But if you have enough small changes, they can add up to big ones - even if none of the changes are particularly meaningful on their own.  Much like how if you collect enough pennies, you can eventually get enough money to buy a car - it just takes a long time and a lot of pennies.

If you get enough neutral mutations stacked together, they can add up to a significant change even if none of them were significant in and of themselves.  And all that's required at that point is that the significant change gives the organism some survival or reproductive advantage.

That's why you can have critical organs, like the heart or the lungs, develop incrementally.  It doesn't matter if those systems were nonfunctional for a while, as long as the organism had something else which did the job well enough in the meantime.  For example, a small enough organism could presumably live without a heart or lungs, instead absorbing oxygen directly through its skin and having that intake of gas provide the equivalent of a pneumatic pump through the blood vessels.  Such an organism would be able to survive without a heart or lungs, but if the species eventually developed a blood pump (heart) and/or internal oxygen chambers (lungs), it would have a decided advantage over others of its species, and would thus be more likely to reproduce and pass on those new organs to its descendants.

Afterwards, it would probably start to lose the generalized systems that allowed it to survive before it developed the more specialized organs, because mutations which affected the ability of those systems to function would no longer be lethal and result in the death of the organism.

If an organism is able to survive without lungs or a heart then doesn't make much sense a  heart or lungs are going to evolve in it.  So you believe a random mutation is going to lead to a heart or set of lungs?  What good would a partial heart or partial lung do.  How would a series of random mutations be able to result in a heart or lungs given random mutation have no goal?   Random mutations just aren't working such a way to do that. and I think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again.

Neutral mutations will tend to be about the same from generation to generation, given they aren't selected for or against.  Seems like you need postive mutations because lifeforms with that positive mutation will increase in the population and then there is a greater change of another random positive mutation acting on the previous random positive mutation,  although a random mutation acting on a previous one does't seem very probable, if they are random.    Who knows, I'm starting o confuse myself if you can believe it.  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

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12544
  • Darwins +301/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #834 on: October 27, 2013, 07:46:58 PM »
Typing in sentences helps communication.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #835 on: October 27, 2013, 07:53:38 PM »

How old the earth is irrelevant to me and to the issue of ID.   If something was designed, then it was designed.  At what point it was designed doesn't matter in reference to the question of was it designed.

The idea is to establish design first.   Then we look at the implications of that.  It is like a flow chart.  Step by step.


But you have not established design. All you've established is an argument from your own personal incredulity.
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 #836 on: October 27, 2013, 07:57:52 PM »

P.s. i don't see how we prove when the earth was formed and so on.  It is just a guess in the end.


And there lies the crux of the fallacy right there, with everything you've attempted to state thus far. "I don't see how...Therefore, design"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5242
  • Darwins +599/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #837 on: October 27, 2013, 08:07:20 PM »
If an organism is able to survive without lungs or a heart then doesn't make much sense a  heart or lungs are going to evolve in it.  So you believe a random mutation is going to lead to a heart or set of lungs?  What good would a partial heart or partial lung do.  How would a series of random mutations be able to result in a heart or lungs given random mutation have no goal?   Random mutations just aren't working such a way to do that. and I think we are challenging the laws of probablity once again.
Evolution isn't about doing things that make sense to human minds, it's about doing things that enhance the ability to survive and reproduce.  That's the only thing that matters when it comes to evolution.  It certainly isn't working towards some long-term goal, or even a short-term one.

So it doesn't matter whether you or I or anyone can think of what good a partial heart or partial lung would do.  For that matter, it doesn't matter whether partial organs would have done any good or not in the first place.  All that matters is, "does the genome produce a viable organism?" and "can the organism survive long enough to reproduce, thus passing on its genome to its descendants?"

Also, you really shouldn't put so much stock in how probable something seems to you.  If you have a big enough sample set, things that seem exceedingly improbable become downright commonplace.  For example, there are more than 175 million possible combinations for a Powerball ticket, thus the odds of an individual who buys one ticket matching every number that's drawn is worse than 175 million to 1.  But if enough people play the game to result in 25 million unique ticket combinations (not counting duplicates), then the odds of someone winning it are around 7 to 1.  The 'laws' of probability are far more flexible than you might think, in other words.

Quote from: DrTesla
Neutral mutations will tend to be about the same from generation to generation, given they aren't selected for or against.  Seems like you need postive mutations because lifeforms with that positive mutation will increase in the population and then there is a greater change of another random positive mutation acting on the previous random positive mutation,  although a random mutation acting on a previous one does't seem very probable, if they are random.    Who knows, I'm starting o confuse myself if you can believe it.  lol
It's certainly true that each given organism will have about the same number of neutral mutations as other, similar organisms.  But the point is that they add up, and since they neither help nor impede the organism's survival, they provide plenty of things for evolution to work with.

To put it another way, if there weren't all those neutral mutations that kept happening, there simply wouldn't have been much evolution to begin with.  As you say, there aren't enough immediately beneficial mutations to provide the impetus for evolutionary change. 

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #838 on: October 27, 2013, 08:07:52 PM »
I always thought an "intelligent designer"  may have used viruses to do it, as viruses take over host's cells and maybe they end up incorporating some of the host's DNA into their own and then transfer it to another host's DNA, so new genetic info gets added to a lifeform.    The odd thing about viruses are they are not really life, just DNA with in a membrane.  They can't replicate except inside of a host cells and they take over the host cells molecular machinery.   

SO maybe God released life form v.1.0  and then as he mastered his craft he used these non-life DNA tranducter devices (viruses) to manipulate the DNA to lead to greater complexity.   Who knows.  lol

I took a microbiology class a few years ago and the virus stuff is so cool.     
"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 #839 on: October 27, 2013, 08:09:10 PM »

P.s. i don't see how we prove when the earth was formed and so on.  It is just a guess in the end.


And there lies the crux of the fallacy right there, with everything you've attempted to state thus far. "I don't see how...Therefore, design"

no i said it is irrelevant because IC systems = design. 

you are flogging strawmen, a common debate trick.  Misrepresent my argument and then tear that one down.   I will now smite you.  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 Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 13027
  • Darwins +354/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #840 on: October 27, 2013, 08:11:06 PM »
You misrepresent, add, etc., to things we say but if done to you, well, that's just going too far.

Oh wait, you lol'd. I guess that excuses 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.