Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 21624 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Darwins +89/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #899 on: October 28, 2013, 05:14:14 PM »
I know how, but I don't know why the virus does it.  Seems like it has to be programmed.

Well, here is a clue. Maybe it Evolved. The successful virus is the one that reproduces.

Do you know about mitochondria?
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 Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Darwins +89/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #900 on: October 28, 2013, 05:15:38 PM »
I care more about my daughters learning mathematics, physics, writing and other useful stuff.

Darwin is just philosophy stuff in the end, it isn't a useful tool that you can apply in your life.  Your belief on origine of species has no bearing on your success,  many MDs don't think Darwin evol is legit.   You guys make it seem like the Foundation of Science much like Jesus freaks think the Bible is the Foundation of their beliefs.

but Darwin evol foundation is built on quicksand  and I have exposed it as a fraud.

Idiot evolution is the basis of medicine.

-100000000000000000 for that stupidity.

You are still trying to string people along by saying stupid things.

Don't you realise how irresponsible you are to write this on the internet?

You should be banned from here immediately. Go and collect your Nobel Prize in "fraud".

« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 05:35:34 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 DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #901 on: October 28, 2013, 05:16:45 PM »
I know how, but I don't know why the virus does it.  Seems like it has to be programmed.

Well, here is a clue. Maybe it Evolved. The successful virus is the one that reproduces.

Do you know about mitochondria?

lol, how does knowing to infect a host cell evolve from one that doesn't have that ability.  that sounds like programmed intelligence.  I don't think a random mutation is going to lead to directing the virus to do x,y, and z.   Viruses are basically DNA inside a capsule and it isn't alive so survival doesn't seem to be a pressing matter.  lol

who knows, viruses are so weird.
"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

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #902 on: October 28, 2013, 06:56:06 PM »
I care more about my daughters learning mathematics, physics, writing and other useful stuff.
I notice you didn't include biology in there.  Well, biology is an important science, and evolution is part of biology and will remain so, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.

Quote from: DrTesla
Darwin is just philosophy stuff in the end, it isn't a useful tool that you can apply in your life.  Your belief on origine of species has no bearing on your success,  many MDs don't think Darwin evol is legit.   You guys make it seem like the Foundation of Science much like Jesus freaks think the Bible is the Foundation of their beliefs.
This is one of the most ignorant and uninformed things you've said throughout this whole topic.  So, evolutionary theory is just philosophy?  It isn't a useful tool?  It isn't something that helps make people successful?  Medical doctors don't think it's legitimate?

Bullshit.  I try to avoid swearing whenever possible, but that statement deserved it.  It is nothing more than the ignorance of a man, with no real knowledge of biology or medicine, who's been wooed by Christian creationists and their theistic beliefs in scientific clothing.  Who is so totally ignorant of the subject being discussed that he can't even tell just how badly he's damaged intelligent design by his ham-handed efforts to defend it and attack evolutionary theory.

Let me put it to you very bluntly.  You could not have done a better job of showing just why irreducible complexity and intelligent design are total non-starters when it comes to biology if you had actually tried to.

Quote from: DrTesla
but Darwin evol foundation is built on quicksand  and I have exposed it as a fraud.
You've exposed something as a fraud, but it is not evolutionary theory.  Declaring 'victory' when done such a poor job of arguing your case only shows just how flimsy your arguments really were.  All you did through this entire topic was advertise your ignorance and just why nobody in their right mind should consider intelligent design or irreducible complexity as valid, viable ideas in the field of biology.

Anyone else reminded of Monty Python?  I'm thinking of the Black Knight, who was still insisting that his victory was imminent even with both arms and both legs removed.

For your own sake, DrTesla, take some time to actually learn about biology and evolution before you try something like this again.  It'll help keep you from looking like a total fool, and you might even learn something from it.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #903 on: October 28, 2013, 07:17:38 PM »
No, I didn't.  I am well aware of fecundity and its implications, but it is as much a response to predation and disease as it is to lethal genetic mutations.  Or, to put it another way, if the percentage of lethal genetic mutations was sufficiently high, then predation and disease would be a much more deadly threat to the survival of a species than they actually are.
No you are missing the point.  And fecundity is not a "response".
If a population gets heightened exposure to a mutagen (e.g. nuclear radiation) they don't respond by having more babies.
Individuals that die before breeding age or don't exist because of lethal mutations are simply out of the equation - their lethal mutations are taken away - they disappear from the scene, together with those mutations.  Copies of the genome containing them take no further part in the fecundity of the population.

Only the viable copies of the genome left in the population are amplified into the next generation - due to whatever reproductive fecundity the population enjoys.
The lethal mutations are purged!  The viable genomes without lethal mutations are multiplied. 

The dynamics of this weeding out of bad mutations and multiplying everything else is what anti-evolutionists refuse to comprehend.
Deleterious mutations do occur at a high rate, just as the fundies claim, but simply don't accumulate in a population where they would continuously degrade genetic information as claimed by fundies.   One claim is right, the other wrong.

Though, I admitted that I didn't know what the actual number was.  If you can show me that the percentage of lethal mutations is at least an order of magnitude higher than my earlier estimate, I'll acknowledge your point.  Say, 10% or so, since I estimated less than 1%.

Jaimehlers, setting me an acceptance standard for this is cute but unnecessary - unnecessary if you understand the point I made above.  However I will look for some data for you I promise  :)  If I can find something it'll likely be from a theoretical simulation - please bear in mind nobody can produce data from DNA that can't be extracted because an organism wasn't viable - the DNA isn't there, it got killed and eaten.   

Let me give an IT analogy (I think I read somewhere you are in IT) - I hope it resonates better  :)

If you open up the software code of a computer program and do an experiment - randomly substitute any one piece of code language, the program will likely hang or produce obvious garbage output.   The programmer could immediately go to work to find the bug and fix it.  You could repeat this experiment 100 times in serial and keep track of what happened. Previous versions, a working copy and backup copies would probably exist, and at some point in the future you could look at all the changes made over time.

Alternatively, if you first made 100 identical copies of the original program and repeated the experiment (a different random substitution in each copy), the vast majority (say 90%) would hang or produce obvious garbage output, but a reasonable proportion (say 10%) might still run, perhaps with some minor glitches or some minor change to perhaps the cosmetics of the screen output.  In some rare cases you might have difficulty finding the fault or might even decide it doesn't even warrant fixing.  Let's call these 10 copies the "survivors", even though some are a bit compromised.

Now instead of debugging around 90 copies that had a severe problem, what if you just delete all those copies? :o  So you'll never need to debug them or worry about them ever again.  Just remove them from the scene into the trashcan and delete them from there as well. After they're deleted you'll probably never know what was changed in each copy to make it hang.  Once deleted it's of no consequence to what comes next.

So now you take the 10 "survivors" ... each of which you copy 100 times, to get 1 000 individual copies in ten strains - and we run the experiment again..... see where I'm going with this? :)  No accumulation of lethal software bugs, and plenty of variation.

In nature we don't get a lonely single copy of a genome struggling to debug itself through generations.  It simply dies.  Its molecules become nutrients for other organisms. And it's not even a noticeable problem because there are thousand or even billions of other "survivor" copies still out there still working.

The DNA coding system probably has a bit more redundancy than computer programming language. There is a fair bit of scope for neutral changes.  But outside of these known neutral changes most mutations in a gene coding for protein would result in protein being built and folded into a different 3D structure.  And highly likely to be deleterious - and hence purged from the gene pool at first opportunity.

The reason I'm labouring this point is that I don't like to see us winning arguments against anti-evolutionists on points that aren't valid.
Mutations are indeed mostly harmful, but it doesn't matter in the slightest because the bad ones are purged, not retained, and the gene pool is topped up with good copies of the genome because of fecundity.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 07:23:39 PM by William »
Git mit uns

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #904 on: October 28, 2013, 07:24:41 PM »
DT seems to be going down the line of all the talking points spewed from fundamental Christians. And he sucks at it.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #905 on: October 28, 2013, 07:32:50 PM »
William, yet another falsity? 
Consider:

What is the "falsity"?

Which of the examples makes it false?

Why did you cherry-pick a few limited examples?

Git mit uns

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #906 on: October 28, 2013, 07:47:56 PM »
But you have to wonder how the viruses got there in the first place.

They would not have "got there" in their present form.  The efficiency and specificity in current viruses is highly evolved.
They could've "got there" in many ways - off topic here. If you want to start another thread on the origins of viruses please go ahead.
Git mit uns

Online jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4727
  • Darwins +535/-13
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #907 on: October 28, 2013, 08:09:13 PM »
No you are missing the point.  And fecundity is not a "response".
Actually, it is a response to environmental pressures.  The fecundity of a species tends to change depending on the kind of pressure a species faces; if food is short, organisms become less fecund, whereas if predators or disease hit a species hard, they become more fecund.

Quote from: William
If a population gets heightened exposure to a mutagen (e.g. nuclear radiation) they don't respond by having more babies.
Never said they did.  But if offspring start dying frequently (such as to lethal mutations), fecundity increases.

Quote from: William
Individuals that die before breeding age or don't exist because of lethal mutations are simply out of the equation - their lethal mutations are taken away - they disappear from the scene, together with those mutations.  Copies of the genome containing them take no further part in the fecundity of the population.
Granted, but irrelevant.  Individual organisms that die due to predation or disease before breeding age are out of the equation as well.  So in a very real sense, it doesn't matter what an organism died from.  It matters that it died before being able to reproduce.

Quote from: William
Only the viable copies of the genome left in the population are amplified into the next generation - due to whatever reproductive fecundity the population enjoys.
The lethal mutations are purged!  The viable genomes without lethal mutations are multiplied.
Again, granted but irrelevant.  The probability of having a lethal mutation is independent from heritability.  Thus why you keep having lethal mutations pop up.

Quote from: William
The dynamics of this weeding out of bad mutations and multiplying everything else is what anti-evolutionists refuse to comprehend.
But the reason they don't understand it is because lethal mutations keep happening in future generations.  Yes, it's certainly true that a particular lethal mutation weeds itself out of the gene pool, but there's nothing at all stopping other lethal mutations from cropping up, because they're (usually) not related to heritability.

Quote from: William
Deleterious mutations do occur at a high rate, just as the fundies claim, but simply don't accumulate in a population where they would continuously degrade genetic information as claimed by fundies.   One claim is right, the other wrong.
Absolutely.  My point was that the rate of lethal mutations (from background radiation or whatever) simply isn't that high.  If it was high enough, on top of other factors that result in viable offspring being killed, then it would threaten the likelihood of a species surviving.

Quote from: William
Jaimehlers, setting me an acceptance standard for this is cute but unnecessary - unnecessary if you understand the point I made above.  However I will look for some data for you I promise  :)  If I can find something it'll likely be from a theoretical simulation - please bear in mind nobody can produce data from DNA that can't be extracted because an organism wasn't viable - the DNA isn't there, it got killed and eaten.
Theoretical is fine.

Actually, let me ask you a question.  How high do you think the rate of lethal mutations is?  A ballpark estimate is fine.

Quote from: William
Let me give an IT analogy (I think I read somewhere you are in IT) - I hope it resonates better  :)

If you open up the software code of a computer program and do an experiment - randomly substitute any one piece of code language, the program will likely hang or produce obvious garbage output.   The programmer could immediately go to work to find the bug and fix it.  You could repeat this experiment 100 times in serial and keep track of what happened. Previous versions, a working copy and backup copies would probably exist, and at some point in the future you could look at all the changes made over time.

Alternatively, if you first made 100 identical copies of the original program and repeated the experiment (a different random substitution in each copy), the vast majority (say 90%) would hang or produce obvious garbage output, but a reasonable proportion (say 10%) might still run, perhaps with some minor glitches or some minor change to perhaps the cosmetics of the screen output.  In some rare cases you might have difficulty finding the fault or might even decide it doesn't even warrant fixing.  Let's call these 10 copies the "survivors", even though some are a bit compromised.

Now instead of debugging around 90 copies that had a severe problem, what if you just delete all those copies? :o  So you'll never need to debug them or worry about them ever again.  Just remove them from the scene into the trashcan and delete them from there as well. After they're deleted you'll probably never know what was changed in each copy to make it hang.  Once deleted it's of no consequence to what comes next.

So now you take the 10 "survivors" ... each of which you copy 100 times, to get 1 000 individual copies in ten strains - and we run the experiment again..... see where I'm going with this? :)  No accumulation of lethal software bugs, and plenty of variation.

In nature we don't get a lonely single copy of a genome struggling to debug itself through generations.  It simply dies.  Its molecules become nutrients for other organisms. And it's not even a noticeable problem because there are thousand or even billions of other "survivor" copies still out there still working.

The DNA coding system probably has a bit more redundancy than computer programming language. There is a fair bit of scope for neutral changes.  But outside of these known neutral changes most mutations in a gene coding for protein would result in protein being built and folded into a different 3D structure.  And highly likely to be deleterious - and hence purged from the gene pool at first opportunity.
Look, I understand what you mean.  But you're missing a key point here.  You're talking about mutations that are so bad that they basically kill off the program (or the organism).  But most mutations aren't like that.  A mutation that simply results in doing things less efficiently, or does something weird but not particularly harmful, isn't going to kill off its carrier.

Quote from: William
The reason I'm labouring this point is that I don't like to see us winning arguments against anti-evolutionists on points that aren't valid.
Mutations are indeed mostly harmful, but it doesn't matter in the slightest because the bad ones are purged, not retained, and the gene pool is topped up with good copies of the genome because of fecundity.
Actually, I don't agree that mutations are mostly harmful.  What you're failing to catch is that only lethal mutations are purged.  Mutations which are detrimental but not lethal simply put an organism at a disadvantage compared to others, and it may not be all that much of one.  So unless the mutation is sufficiently detrimental, the chances are high that it will be conserved within the genome; multiplied, as you put it.  It's simply unavoidable as long as it survives long enough to reproduce, and to do so in sufficient numbers.

More to the point, some mutations which are actually ultimately lethal are conserved because they give a survival advantage, such as sickle-cell anemia does with malaria.  Malaria is much more deadly to children than sickle-cell anemia is (indeed, sickle-cell anemia doesn't actually kill someone off until they're in their twenties at the earliest), which means that having sickle-cell anemia actually enhances the chances of someone surviving long enough to pass on the gene for it.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #908 on: October 28, 2013, 09:15:59 PM »

lol, how does knowing to infect a host cell evolve from one that doesn't have that ability. that sounds like programmed intelligence. I don't think a random mutation is going to lead to directing the virus to do x,y, and z.   Viruses are basically DNA inside a capsule and it isn't alive so survival doesn't seem to be a pressing matter.  lol

who knows, viruses are so weird.


Argument from Personal Incredulity Fallacy (It failed then and it fails now)
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 09:17:33 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Darwins +89/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #909 on: October 28, 2013, 10:06:19 PM »
I care more about my daughters learning mathematics, physics, writing and other useful stuff.

Darwin is just philosophy stuff in the end, it isn't a useful tool that you can apply in your life.  Your belief on origine of species has no bearing on your success,  many MDs don't think Darwin evol is legit.   You guys make it seem like the Foundation of Science much like Jesus freaks think the Bible is the Foundation of their beliefs.

but Darwin evol foundation is built on quicksand  and I have exposed it as a fraud.

You say anything to string people along. You even lie about having children.


lol, my argument was it is dumb for Darwin parents and "creationist" parents to get so worked up over what is talked about in some high school science class.   It is a trivial issue, in my view.   I don't have kids though.   lol  I don't care either way what is taught,  they can't censor the truth because the truth always triumphs in the end.    People always fear new bold ideas that go against the conventional wisdom.  But over time, they begin to accept the new ideas because people know the truth when they see 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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Darwins +217/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #910 on: October 28, 2013, 10:15:25 PM »

You say anything to string people along. You even lie about having children.


Yes, I think it's unlikely that he has children. (argument from personal bias)
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #911 on: October 28, 2013, 10:24:25 PM »
One of you wished sterilization on me in an earlier post on this thread. 

You guys are pretty mean.  Ironically,  I am been warned by the moderator yet I have not personally insulted anybody on here or used curse words.   Yet my critics have bombarded me with ad hominem after ad hominem.   

You did catch me in a white lie there.  lol  Not sure if it really matters either way, I could have 2 sons for all you know,  or I could be 10 years old.  Unlike some people on here like Nam, I don't like talking about myself.   ;)

"argument from incredulity"  sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.  lol   can somebody explain the difference to me.   I am a layman at rhetoric and debate trickery.
"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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Darwins +217/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #912 on: October 28, 2013, 10:24:47 PM »
.... so survival doesn't seem to be a pressing matter.  lol

who knows, viruses are so weird.

LOL, You misunderstand the reason why life survives. You think it's Lamarkian. LOL.

A mutation just opens up an opportunity. If it works, then the self-evolved replicant just replicates more. Any mutation that decreases opportunity, decreases replication.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #913 on: October 28, 2013, 10:28:07 PM »
.... so survival doesn't seem to be a pressing matter.  lol

who knows, viruses are so weird.

LOL, You misunderstand the reason why life survives. You think it's Lamarkian. LOL.

A mutation just opens up an opportunity. If it works, then the self-evolved replicant just replicates more. Any mutation that decreases opportunity, decreases replication.

This assumes mutations are positive in some way.  How is a mutation positive for a virus, it doesn't give it any advantage it would seem given it isn't life. 

What is an example of a positive random mutation in your view?   My microbio class was over 8 years ago and I don't remember much of the stuff.
"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 Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2065
  • Darwins +125/-2
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #914 on: October 28, 2013, 10:34:43 PM »
Tesla, if you're willing to lie about having children what's stopping you from lying about your understanding of evolution, or defending ID? Why should anyone take you seriously?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #915 on: October 28, 2013, 10:43:17 PM »

"argument from incredulity"  sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.  lol   can somebody explain the difference to me.   I am a layman at rhetoric and debate trickery.

The difference is you are going beyond admitting you don't know how it happened. You are jumping to a positive assertion. And that is illogical. When you think something is impossible or "straining the limits of the laws of probability" you should admit ignorance. Instead you are asserting "Some intelligent design did it" which you have not demonstrated by merely looking for 'problems'. You simply cannot use this argument and get to ID (or to even rationally believe it). Just b/c something seems impossible to you, doesn't mean it is - b/c your lack of the ability to 'imagine' how something could have happened does not prove the negative. Again, at best you should admit ignorance.

At base, this is what you should have been doing all along - since you already admitted that your understanding of evolutionary biology is high-school level. Instead you've chosen to make nonsense statements and copy/paste from websites that cater to your ignorance/incredulity. Stop. Just...stop. Stop catering to your biases and actually go do some disinterested homework on the actual subjects.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 10:46:44 PM by median »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #916 on: October 28, 2013, 10:43:42 PM »
One of you wished sterilization on me in an earlier post on this thread. 

You guys are pretty mean.  Ironically,  I am been warned by the moderator yet I have not personally insulted anybody on here or used curse words.   Yet my critics have bombarded me with ad hominem after ad hominem.   

You did catch me in a white lie there.  lol  Not sure if it really matters either way, I could have 2 sons for all you know,  or I could be 10 years old.  Unlike some people on here like Nam, I don't like talking about myself.   ;)

"argument from incredulity"  sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.  lol   can somebody explain the difference to me.   I am a layman at rhetoric and debate trickery.

Every single post you make is an insult to us, and everyone else.

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #917 on: October 28, 2013, 10:44:27 PM »
Tesla, if you're willing to lie about having children what's stopping you from lying about your understanding of evolution, or defending ID? Why should anyone take you seriously?

Even more importantly, what's to stop him from lying to himself??
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 #918 on: October 28, 2013, 10:45:56 PM »
I thought this was interesting re: viruses, to get back on topic of evolution or not:

Behe stated in The Edge of Evolution that "in just the past few decades HIV has actually undergone more of certain kinds of mutations than all cells have endured since the beginning of the world." However, Behe then observed that "those mutations, while medically important, have changed the functioning virus very little. It still has the same number of genes that work in the same way. - See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/08/pandasthumb_fails004071.html#sthash.d2Byqr4T.dpuf
"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: 11810
  • Darwins +297/-82
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #919 on: October 28, 2013, 10:49:02 PM »
Oh, and by the by DT, it was years before I stated anything personal about myself here. See, unlike you, I've been a member on this website since 2008, the old website since 2007. You've been here how long? And, how long will you be here? I'm pretty sure, though my Watched level is at 25%, I'll still be here when you're gone.

Doesn't say much about you, does it?

-Nam
A god is like a rock: it does absolutely nothing until someone or something forces it to do something. The only capability the rock has is doing nothing until another force compels it physically to move.

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #920 on: October 28, 2013, 10:55:18 PM »

"argument from incredulity"  sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.  lol   can somebody explain the difference to me.   I am a layman at rhetoric and debate trickery.

The difference is you are going beyond admitting you don't know how it happened. You are jumping to a positive assertion. And that is illogical. When you think something is impossible or "straining the limits of the laws of probability" you should admit ignorance. Instead you are asserting "Some intelligent design did it" which you have not demonstrated by merely looking for 'problems'. You simply cannot use this argument and get to ID (or to even rationally believe it). Just b/c something seems impossible to you, doesn't mean it is - b/c your lack of the ability to 'imagine' how something could have happened does not prove the negative. Again, at best you should admit ignorance.

So intelligent design supporters are supposed to prove a negative?  That evolution didn't happen?  Rather than Darwins prove it did?   

I have explained how it is improbable random muttaions lead to irreducible complexity and I'd rather not beat that drum anymore.
"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 #921 on: October 28, 2013, 10:57:42 PM »
Oh, and by the by DT, it was years before I stated anything personal about myself here. See, unlike you, I've been a member on this website since 2008, the old website since 2007. You've been here how long? And, how long will you be here? I'm pretty sure, though my Watched level is at 25%, I'll still be here when you're gone.

Doesn't say much about you, does it?

-Nam

It says that they favor hostile people, like you, who hold the "right" opinion in line with the website's beliefs, and they punish affable people who hold the "wrong" or "stupid" opinion.

I shan't self censor myself simply to post on this website or any website.  There are always other places to post if they find me a horrible monster of some sort. 

If I were to do a "Best of Nam"  quotes on this thread, we will see in no uncertain terms that you don't talk about evolution,  you use rhetoric and ad hominem and then get up on your soapbox about what ScienceTM is and what it isn't even though you've told us about 10 times you didn't finish high school.   I have a degree in mechanical engineering so maybe it is possible that I am a bright guy.   Yet you've called me stupid a million times and I don't mind that but at some point it becomes clutter on the thread.  Stop henpecking me bro.  I don't like doing tit for tat.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 11:00:41 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 #922 on: October 28, 2013, 11:04:08 PM »
Tesla, if you're willing to lie about having children what's stopping you from lying about your understanding of evolution, or defending ID? Why should anyone take you seriously?

There is a difference b/t a lie and a white lie.   I just did that to see if you guys were paying attention because sometimes it seems like you aren't reading my posts. 

I don't get why you think I am lying or that for some reason that I need to lie.  As I have pointed out,  your beliefs on evolution and origin of life are irrelevant to success in life and an understanding of science that can be applied for something useful to society.    I'm not sure what we do with the "fact" that we spontenously evolved from random mutations.   It is what it is, there is no application.
"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: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #923 on: October 28, 2013, 11:04:27 PM »

So intelligent design supporters are supposed to prove a negative?  That evolution didn't happen?  Rather than Darwins prove it did?   

I have explained how it is improbable random muttaions lead to irreducible complexity and I'd rather not beat that drum anymore.

And once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject (and our responses to your logically fallacious arguments). The burden of proof is on YOU!!!!! You are the one claiming "design" (the cosmic designer of the gaps fallacy) and IC, your only attempt is via a logical fallacy (Argument From Incredulity Fallacy). I'm sorry if you don't like it, but you are just plain f***ing wrong! You DO NOT understand the science (b/c you haven't studied it in any detail) and you keep trying to use logically fallacious arguments. Just admit you don't know.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1295
  • Darwins +89/-11
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #924 on: October 28, 2013, 11:06:25 PM »
One of you wished sterilization on me in an earlier post on this thread. 

You guys are pretty mean.  Ironically,  I am been warned by the moderator yet I have not personally insulted anybody on here or used curse words.   Yet my critics have bombarded me with ad hominem after ad hominem.   

You did catch me in a white lie there.  lol  Not sure if it really matters either way, I could have 2 sons for all you know,  or I could be 10 years old.  Unlike some people on here like Nam, I don't like talking about myself.   ;)

"argument from incredulity"  sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.  lol   can somebody explain the difference to me.   I am a layman at rhetoric and debate trickery.

Tesla, Even in your apology you will say anything to string people along. You have no credibility.


Let's try to avoid these rhetorical skirmishes although I excel in rhetoric.

Ok, let me try it this way.

Do you deny that a mousetrap is an irreducibly complex system, ie without one of its parts, it does not function like a mousetrap.   

Do you deny that a mousetrap is a relatively simple mechanism.

Do you deny that many systems/organs in the body are at least as complicated as a mousetrap?
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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2656
  • Darwins +217/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #925 on: October 28, 2013, 11:08:04 PM »
"argument from incredulity"  sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.  lol   can somebody explain the difference to me.   I am a layman at rhetoric and debate trickery.

Argument from incredulity is just argument from personal bias and guesswork. Science tends to demand some kind of proof or basis for axioms that a theory is based upon.

Eg,

One of your creationist pals, based his dissertation on "Conservation of Information", which is a junk idea, since I can burn the last Encyclopedia Brittanica, without any problems. He also depended on ridiculing natural selection as a search function, without examining how powerful this search function would be in each species, or how many mutations occur in each species.

Your creationists pals also talk about how mutations are bad, and yet these bad mutations are happening all the time, and they don't propose a mechanism to have them deleted. I know some creationists believe that life is degenerating since 4000BC, but they offer no evidence. Scientists believe that life has been keeping itself OK for millions of years. You dodged the question when I asked it: "How do you show where all the bad mutations go?"

No creationist ideas work, because each assertion is a dead end in logic, that can't be supported with evidence, either.

Quote
sounds an awful like healthy skepticism.

Climate deniers have 'healthy skepticism', but they never present any sane evidence for what they say. They just harp on about their belief, and ridicule scientists, political correctness, communists, etc.

Ian Plimer, a geologist, in Australia, wrote a climate denier book, and in it, he said that undersea volcanoes caused all the increase in CO2. So, what was the rest of the book about? About denying that anthropogenic carbon was a threat, after saying it came from volcanoes.

I would like to be skeptical about CO2, because it's easier. However, the north pole is melting, the south pole has a slushy western shelf(?), which is disrupting krill reproduction, and CO2 by itself, is causing aberrant plant growth, and woody thickening. Coral is also having trouble forming, in acidic oceans.

Healthy skepticism is not healthy, if it accords with one's personal biases. It's only healthy when your are investigating AGAINST your natural bias. That is to say, YOU should have a healthy skepticism of IC and ID.

Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #926 on: October 28, 2013, 11:08:53 PM »

So intelligent design supporters are supposed to prove a negative?  That evolution didn't happen?  Rather than Darwins prove it did?   

I have explained how it is improbable random muttaions lead to irreducible complexity and I'd rather not beat that drum anymore.

And once again you demonstrate your ignorance of the subject (and our responses to your logically fallacious arguments). The burden of proof is on YOU!!!!! You are the one claiming "design" (the cosmic designer of the gaps fallacy) and IC, your only attempt is via a logical fallacy (Argument From Incredulity Fallacy). I'm sorry if you don't like it, but you are just plain f***ing wrong! You DO NOT understand the science (b/c you haven't studied it in any detail) and you keep trying to use logically fallacious arguments. Just admit you don't know.

The observation of IC in lifeforms is an attempt to falsify evolution.  If something is IC, then Darwin evolution cannot account for it.

Some Darwins deny there is IC in lifeforms. 

Yet others argue that Darwin evolution can account for IC in lifeforms.

So it looks to me like they just using various arguments even if they contradict and hoping one sounds convincing. 

My thesis on this website has been IC systems disprove Darwin evolution b/c Darwin cannot account for them.    That is what I sought to prove.   Not design itself although that is an obvious implication of what I sought to prove and I think in fact I did prove.
"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: 1845
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #927 on: October 28, 2013, 11:11:08 PM »

There is a difference b/t a lie and a white lie.   I just did that to see if you guys were paying attention because sometimes it seems like you aren't reading my posts. 

I don't get why you think I am lying or that for some reason that I need to lie.  As I have pointed out,  your beliefs on evolution and origin of life are irrelevant to success in life and an understanding of science that can be applied for something useful to society.    I'm not sure what we do with the "fact" that we spontenously evolved from random mutations.   It is what it is, there is no application.

More ignorance talking! No one says this in the scientific community. We did not "spontaneously evolve". Are you that utterly hard headed that you won't go research the science or take some courses in evolutionary biology or biological anthropology and actually understand the subject? It's absurd how you bring ups abiogenesis when we aren't talking about it - and this is just more examples (of the big heap-load we are already have) of your use of logically fallacious arguments.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan