Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 29919 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1044 on: October 29, 2013, 02:49:26 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.
Okay I concede some of what you are saying is correct.  Only some of it.  I generously concede because I don’t want to waste energy on this finer point - I have no need to clarify it here now to make my bigger points below.  (If you want to learn more yourself, you might discover that technically in population genetics “maximum fecundity” is defined as a constant.  Another concept called “realised fecundity” varies for many reasons.  But thinking of “realised fecundity” as a “response” is confused terminology because many of the mechanisms are indirect and passive.   It is complex.  If you want to debate this issue more I’d be happy to continue in a separate thread at a later date when I’m back home - travelling OS atm.)

Never mind – you can have this point in your favour so we can move on to the real meat and potatoes of deleterious/lethal mutations.

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.
I never said you did say that.  I said it myself by way of explanation.  Please look at what I said again. If a population is exposed to nuclear radiation (causes mutations – many lethal) they don’t respond by having more babies. 

In this case, nuclear radiation … Firstly, neither the population gene pool nor the individuals know (without scientific investigation – an unnatural intervention) when gametes are dying and defective – but they might find it harder to conceive.  Secondly, if they do conceive, the rate of spontaneous miscarriages will probably be higher.  They might try again and again before success, and more of the kids might die before they in turn reach reproductive age – but in many cases kids will die too late for the parents to compensate by trying again.  All these factors cause a marked decrease in realised fecundity:
Quote
It has long been no secret that male infertility can occur as one of the potential adverse effects of radiation exposure. As dangerous radionuclides enter the human body, a chain of alterations at a genetic level is set into motion, making natural conception impossible. According to latest research, the average period during which Ukrainian couples make a dedicated effort to conceive a child is 2.5 years. If this tendency does not improve, Ukrainian doctors say, there will soon come a time when more and more families will have to resort to artificial insemination in order to have a child.

Other risks are equally distressing: Even if successful, fertilisation with DNA-damaged sperm may lead to irreversible abnormalities in embryonic development, triggering severe disorders, developmental pathologies, and DNA changes in the foetus.
http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2010/chernobyl_birth_rates

So Jaimehlers,  the evidence says you are dead wrong – fecundity in the Ukraine has done exactly the opposite to what you predicted or expected  :)

Before I celebrate a debating victory I have to ask if the Ukraine result supports me?  Does it?  Maybe a slight victory only – because if it ever is rectified it'll take the usual fecundity in unaffected parts of the greater world population to, over time, assist in recolonising the Ukraine gene pool with good genes while Ukraine gene pool is gradually purged of all the crap mutations from radiation – purging by death of gametes, zygotes, foetuses, babies, toddlers, teenagers and young adults, as well as fertility problems with many of the surviving adults.  Some surviving Ukrainians will migrate elsewhere and contaminate other gene pools - but fecundity will not increase there in "response" either. Any bad mutations will, however, continue purging themselves.

This is the first leg my argument stands on – deleterious/lethal mutations do fuck things up a lot but are purged and replaced through fecundity, so that in evolutionary time you‘ll be hard pressed to know the bad mutations existed unless science keeps a record for you.

My opinion is that this is one of the least deployed but most powerful concepts we have when creationists and sneaky IC proponents tell us that bad mutations, if left to their own devices without godly intervention, will only destroy genetic information.  Bad genes destroy themselves.  They don’t accumulate in a population anything like the goddidit brigade so wish they did.

That was Part One.  Next part in a day or two - sorry I’m very busy at the moment.  But I can assure the next part will be full of exciting learnings about how prevalent deleterious/lethal mutations are!  And why the high rate of bad mutations doesn’t matter either.  And complexity can actually increase as a direct result of random mutations breaking things  :laugh:
Git mit uns

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1045 on: October 29, 2013, 02:51:33 PM »
jaime,

try to split up your responses because that wall of text is tedious to repond to.  i would responde to every time if you didn't do that so much. 

Your first confusion is that you are conflating a beneficial system that helps it adapt to its environment  with the need to stay alive period.  If there was no postive random mutations that nature could select, by your logic the species would die out, rather than one variation survive longer than another.   The inverse of your logic is that if that evolutoin isn't even needed because it can survive without it.  But that doesn't address how evolution accounts for IC systems.
"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 #1046 on: October 29, 2013, 02:52:18 PM »
your assumption seems to be that it did happen on its own even if you can't prove it or explain how in a logical way it happened.   Again, this is based in your assumption that there is no "God".

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! NO! FUCKING NO~!

You are irrational to misrepresent my position, and it angers me that you continually attempt to do it. I HAVE NOT STATED A POSITIVE POSITION. YOU HAVE! The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate your position. Logic entails that I could admit ignorance of a given proposition (X) and it simply does not follow that I am making any assumptions further.

STOP MISREPRESENTING MY POSITION!!!

Supernatural explanations are not science, period. Your continual attempts to disregard this are nonsense - and will continue to be. I think you just don't like what science is.

So you have two assumptions going at once.  There is no God and evolution must explain everything even if we don't have proof yet.    I can just as easly say intelligent design must explain everything even if we don't have the proof yet

You are an outright liar. I do not have an assumption of "there is no God". I never claimed that in any way, and I do not have an assumption that evolution explains the biodiversity we see. I accept the scientific evidence for it, and your assertions do not win by default even if you do not accept the evidence - as fallacious arguments don't get you there.

I think you just want to reframe my arguments as some kind of debate trickery, and then knock down the reframed argument.  This is called a "strawman".

You are a hypocrite for attempting to put words in my mouth a second ago only to turn around and claim I'm doing that (which I have not). It's clear that you are extremely uncomfortable with the idea of ignorance. You just can't stand thinking that you don't know how "it" happened. So you invent logically fallacious arguments to sooth your emotions. You sir are an enemy of reason.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 02:55:21 PM by median »
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 #1047 on: October 29, 2013, 02:56:47 PM »
Ok, well we disagree on does darwin evol lead to IC systems.  You probably don't even concede there are IC systems. 

Where you come down on this crucial issue is going to decide which way you go next.  It is the fork in the road.

But you have to prove evolution just as much as I have to prove intelligent design.  But right now I'm just trying to falsify Darwin evol with the observation of IC in lifeforms.   I don't have to prove the implication from the get go,  only that evol doesn't account from IC.    I think it is easy to understand Darwin IC doesn't account for it but if we don't agree on that, then what can I do.  I don't have to convince you of anything....and you are only one person.  I think majority of college educated people understand my point though.
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

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

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1048 on: October 29, 2013, 03:03:25 PM »
How does self replicatoin happen without that being encoded somehow. 

lol.  By template directed self-catalysis.  There is no encoding necessary when it starts.

It's a well known feature of some polynucleotides - but perhaps a little above your apparent intellect showcased here. lol.
Git mit uns

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1049 on: October 29, 2013, 03:08:28 PM »
No,  my logic is:   Darwin evolution cannot account for IC.   (obviusly you disagree with this, despite no explanation as to how it can)
 From my first observation, I then conclude that it must be designed. 

Your logic is "There is no God"  therefore there is no intelligent design therefore evolution accounts for everything in nature.

How dare you continually misrepresent my position. Could you get anymore irrational? I never said, or assumed, anything of what you are accusing me of. IMO you should be banned for this alone. "Your logic" is exactly the problem. You are attempting to operate upon your own set of hypocritical standards of reasoning - thinking that it's OK to use logically fallacious arguments and get away with it. You just can't stand the possibility that you might be wrong and that you can't demonstrate your "designer". So your precommitment to ID clouds your ability to do disinterested work (and to follow the evidence instead of lead it). How sad that you have sacrificed reason on the alter of your gullibility.

Again, you haven't demonstrated IC. You just keep ASSERTING IT like a child (trying to define your way into being right). FAIL. 
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1050 on: October 29, 2013, 03:10:41 PM »
No, you are wrong because you change the definition of IC system.  If a part being removed from a system does not make the system non-functional, by definition of an IC system, it was not part of an IC system because no part can be removed without there being failure. 

I've already pointed out we can lose limbs , we can lose an eye, etc and we won't die in most cases,  but that is because the body as a whole is not an IC system with the function of sustaining life.  But there are parts that if they were removed,  we will die, like the heart, respiratory system, immune system, etc.   People with AIDS have compromised immune systems which leads to various form of fungus and infectious disease that kill them eventually.

You have to be careful to define a system in terms of a function, in that all the parts contribute to that function.  You cannot just define an entire body as IC if not everything in that body is necessary to the function of sustaining life.
So I've not really been all that nit-picky with the whole definition of irreducible complexity.  I think that's a bit of a red herring frankly, primarily because your definition of IC has no bearing on the process of evolution.  It simply does not, and you really aren't getting that.

According to you, irreducible complexity is defined as a system that should one part be removed would cease functioning.  If you use that definition, then the claim that the existence of an irreducibly complex system refutes evolution as an explanation for that system is wrong.  As has been shown to you several trillion times in this monster of a thread, a system such as this can be built up utilizing other existing parts that are later removed.  You, mister mechanical engineer, should damn well understand concepts like scaffolding, redundancy, and stop-gap solutions.  This whole "irreducibly complex systems (using your definition of IC) can't be iteratively built up" is f**king WRONG.  I get that you don't want it to be wrong, but it just clearly f**king is.  Plain as day.

Where you keep getting confused is with this notion of intention.  As if the evolutionary process has some predefined goal of producing an eye or an immune system.  Eyes evolve strictly out of the necessity of survival and reproduction.  That's it.  Evolution isn't this sentience that starts off with a single-celled organism and puts together a Pert chart and project plan for "making an eye".

Organisms reproduce; the offspring of these organisms retain traits of the parent organisms; reproduction is an imperfect process so some traits are slightly modified; these modifications have ramifications on the probability of survival and reproduction of the organisms; the probability of survival and reproduction is dependent upon things like environmental factors, presence or absence of predators/prey, etc.; traits that increase these probabilities will have a tendency to propagate more vs. traits that increase less or decrease these probabilities; these traits can be independent of other traits, work in concert with other traits, or work in conflict with other traits.  Sometimes those traits have multiple potential useful functions, and in some earlier iterations function a is the critical function for the emergent system, but functions b and c are useless but not detrimental.  After many successive iterations and offspring, slight change d comes along that leverages functions b and c, and this new emergent function displaces the original emergent function that was served by function a.  Eventually, after many successive iterations and offspring, slight change e comes along, that leading to yet again new emergent function that not only displaces the emergent function that was served by function a but does it better.  Eventually, after many successive iterations and offspring, emergent function from b/c/d/e simply outperforms emergent function from a/b/c (in terms of survival and reproduction) and, eventually, function a disappears (or becomes vestigial, or is incorporated in some other emergent function).

Should one of those functions be a human eye, so be it.  But the process of evolution had no goal whatsoever in producing that eye.  It's not like evolution needs to "know" that it will need function e at some point in time in order to propagate function b; all that matters is that incorporation of function e in the organism still results in a net positive evaluation of the fitness function of "survive and reproduce".  That's it.

So go ahead and have your arguments of the definition of IC.  It doesn't really matter though, because, if you win your argument, that means that IC has no ramifications for the model of the theory of evolution.  And, ultimately, has no bearing on anything, whatsoever.  Unless you find it useful to have a keyword to express the notion that some systems break when you remove sh*t.

"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1051 on: October 29, 2013, 03:13:31 PM »
Most people who are poor at math manage to graduaate high school.

It might be better for your position to at least spell your insult correctly.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1052 on: October 29, 2013, 03:19:57 PM »
Ok, well we disagree on does darwin evol lead to IC systems.  You probably don't even concede there are IC systems. 

Where you come down on this crucial issue is going to decide which way you go next.  It is the fork in the road.

But you have to prove evolution just as much as I have to prove intelligent design.  But right now I'm just trying to falsify Darwin evol with the observation of IC in lifeforms.   I don't have to prove the implication from the get go,  only that evol doesn't account from IC.    I think it is easy to understand Darwin IC doesn't account for it but if we don't agree on that, then what can I do.  I don't have to convince you of anything....and you are only one person.  I think majority of college educated people understand my point though.

You are talking to quite a few people (myself included) with higher level college educations...and we are unanimous that you have't demonstrated your mere assertions. I do not have to "prove evolution". If I wanted to, I could simply say I don't know exactly how things happened - and you would still be left with the burden of proof b/c you are the one making the positive assertions of IC and that you think they can't be 'accounted' for. Sorry, the standards of scientific evidence are not decided by you, nor are the laws of logic.

The fact that you are trying to "falsify Darwin evol" when you haven't even studied the science and don't even know what the f*** you're talking about on the subject displays (quite clearly) your confirmation bias. Your methods are anti-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 #1053 on: October 29, 2013, 03:30:47 PM »
How does self replicatoin happen without that being encoded somehow. 

lol.  By template directed self-catalysis.  There is no encoding necessary when it starts.

It's a well known feature of some polynucleotides - but perhaps a little above your apparent intellect showcased here. lol.

ok, pretty confident they have not proven that this self catalyss accounts for self replication at the beginning.    Another example of "just so" conjecture.

Moreover,  this doesn't explain how DNA originated b/c doesn't seem probably ttat you go from no-code to a code by randomness in various chemical reactions.
"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 #1054 on: October 29, 2013, 03:35:44 PM »
If you do not prove evolution then I can continue to say it is nonsense.  This isn't a courtroom in which I am the prosecuter and I must prove something to get a conviction.  The assumption in court is the defendant is not guilty.    But there is no automatic presumption of truth in science.  In Science, two ideas are weighed against each other, and neither is presumed to be right. 

I think IC in systems does damage the Darwin evol theory badly.  I cannot force you to accept that and it isn't up to your vote or the votes of Darwins. 
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

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

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5051
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1055 on: October 29, 2013, 03:38:38 PM »
try to split up your responses because that wall of text is tedious to repond to.  i would responde to every time if you didn't do that so much.
Do you even know what a wall of text is?  It's a piece of writing that doesn't use whitespace to separate anything, so you end up with basically a big block of text that's hard to read.

Given that I use paragraphs and also split your posts apart to make them easier to read, it's insulting to be told that I'm putting up a wall of text.

I don't care whether you find my posts tedious to respond to or not.  That's just an excuse, and not even a very good one, because it's nothing more than your opinion.  Frankly, I find it more likely that this is an excuse you're using just so you don't have to make a lot of effort to respond to people's points.  If they only ever write short posts (I'm assuming one or two paragraphs), then they can't ever put sufficient information in them to actually counter the simplistic arguments you make, and so you can claim to win by default.

Well, tough!  This isn't about making it easy for you to claim victory.  This is about negating the bad arguments you use.  That takes time and space, especially since I'm quoting your own material to make it easy to see what I'm referring to.  I'm sorry that you think that's tedious, but you're just going to have to deal with it.  You started this, and now that the going is getting a bit tough, you want people to make it easier for you?

Quote from: DrTesla
Your first confusion is that you are conflating a beneficial system that helps it adapt to its environment  with the need to stay alive period.  If there was no postive random mutations that nature could select, by your logic the species would die out, rather than one variation survive longer than another.   The inverse of your logic is that if that evolutoin isn't even needed because it can survive without it.  But that doesn't address how evolution accounts for IC systems.
I'm guessing you didn't actually understand the point I was trying to make.  Again.

Look, my points are simple compared to the actual evidence and arguments used to support evolution.  If you're having this much trouble keeping up, if you find a single page of arguments to be tedious to read, how do you ever expect to actually get anywhere on this anti-evolution crusade of yours?

I mean, your attempt to respond is so far off-base that I'm not even sure how you went that badly astray.  It doesn't actually address what I said at all; since you didn't quote the part you were referring to, I don't have any way to figure out where you went wrong.  For all I know, you just made more assumptions about what I said and responded to them, thus committing the strawman fallacy.

But to make it simple, no, I am not conflating beneficial systems with the ability of an organism to survive; I am not suggesting that an organism would die out without regular positive mutations; and I am certainly not talking about whether evolution is 'needed' or not.  Naturally, none of those things address the subject at hand.  But I actually said none of those things; you came up with them from somewhere.


----


Look, to be blunt, if you can't understand what other people are saying well enough to be able to respond to the points they're actually making, if you can't even follow a single page of arguments without finding it tedious, why should anyone put any credence in any argument you make or ever will make?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5051
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1056 on: October 29, 2013, 03:42:20 PM »
If you do not prove evolution then I can continue to say it is nonsense.  This isn't a courtroom in which I am the prosecuter and I must prove something to get a conviction.  The assumption in court is the defendant is not guilty.    But there is no automatic presumption of truth in science.  In Science, two ideas are weighed against each other, and neither is presumed to be right. 

I think IC in systems does damage the Darwin evol theory badly.  I cannot force you to accept that and it isn't up to your vote or the votes of Darwins.
You can say whatever you want.  But unless you can show that you're competent enough to address the points that people actually raise, intelligent enough to understand what they're saying, and sensible enough to realize that what you think about something has no bearing on whether it's true or not, there's no reason to consider your opinion to be of any particular value.

As I said at the end of my last post, "Look, to be blunt, if you can't understand what other people are saying well enough to be able to respond to the points they're actually making, if you can't even follow a single page of arguments without finding it tedious, why should anyone put any credence in any argument you make or ever will make?"

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1057 on: October 29, 2013, 03:45:30 PM »
jaime

your last response was pure filibuster.  I think that I nailed that you were conflating on purpose or just confused in your previous point.  If not, show me where I am wrong.   IC systems are not needed for survival in itself, it just can increase survival.  You were arguing that IC systems are not needed for survival.  They can survive without them so they are not complex.  If I mispresented your argument then show me where I did that in specifics.   No more empty rhetoric about how dumb I am.
"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 jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1058 on: October 29, 2013, 03:45:49 PM »
If you do not prove evolution then I can continue to say it is nonsense.  This isn't a courtroom in which I am the prosecuter and I must prove something to get a conviction.  The assumption in court is the defendant is not guilty.    But there is no automatic presumption of truth in science.  In Science, two ideas are weighed against each other, and neither is presumed to be right. 

I think IC in systems does damage the Darwin evol theory badly.  I cannot force you to accept that and it isn't up to your vote or the votes of Darwins.
You certainly can't force, but you can make a reasoned, logical argument backed with facts to support it, and respond to criticisms of those arguments that refute your premise.

Or you can just repeatedly say "IC in systems does damage the Dawin evol theory badly" and just pretend that saying it often enough has some bearing on reality.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12431
  • Darwins +289/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1059 on: October 29, 2013, 03:47:33 PM »
If not, show me where I am wrong.

That's the problem.  You aren't capable of understanding when you're wrong.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1060 on: October 29, 2013, 04:18:35 PM »
Even if a a lifeform dies after an IC system fails,  that does not mean it was not IC.   IC just means that specific system would become non-functional if it did not have one of its parts.   What happens after that is irrelevant.   The point of IC is how did all the parts get there in a gradual way if there is no functional precursor.

I am now prepared to accept your apology for doubting me.
"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 Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1061 on: October 29, 2013, 04:24:58 PM »
Even if a a lifeform dies after an IC system fails,  that does not mean it was not IC.   IC just means that specific system would become non-functional if it did not have one of its parts.   What happens after that is irrelevant.   The point of IC is how did all the parts get there in a gradual way if there is no functional precursor.

I am now prepared to accept your apology for doubting me.

Who are you talking to?
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1062 on: October 29, 2013, 04:26:44 PM »
young Jaime.  He is a good kid but he does not yet have wisdom. 

all i asked him to do was break up his responses because I end up having to delete several of my previous points in my response.   wall of text hurts my eyes.
"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 Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1063 on: October 29, 2013, 04:33:12 PM »
young Jaime.  He is a good kid but he does not yet have wisdom. 

all i asked him to do was break up his responses because I end up having to delete several of my previous points in my response.   wall of text hurts my eyes.
Thanks for clarifying, and good luck with that. It really sounds more like your problem than his though.

"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1540
  • Darwins +104/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1064 on: October 29, 2013, 04:38:11 PM »
young Jaime.  He is a good kid but he does not yet have wisdom. 

all i asked him to do was break up his responses because I end up having to delete several of my previous points in my response.   wall of text hurts my eyes.

Since you lost your credibility, you have decided to use insults instead.

Your insults are no better than your credibility.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2013, 05:27:54 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

Online jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2250
  • Darwins +406/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1065 on: October 29, 2013, 04:41:00 PM »
young Jaime.  He is a good kid but he does not yet have wisdom. 

all i asked him to do was break up his responses because I end up having to delete several of my previous points in my response.   wall of text hurts my eyes.
How do you expect anyone to believe that you've ever critically read anything remotely scientific in nature if something like that hurts your eyes?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1865
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1066 on: October 29, 2013, 04:59:00 PM »
^^^Most of us quit giving him the benefit of that particular doubt some time ago.
"It's hard to, but I'm starting to believe some of you actually believe these things.  That is completely beyond my ability to understand if that is really the case, but things never cease to amaze me."

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5051
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1067 on: October 29, 2013, 05:07:32 PM »
your last response was pure filibuster.
No, it's a very real concern at this point.  If you aren't capable of addressing the arguments that people make, then you're just going to waste their time and yours.  If you aren't capable of understanding the arguments that people make, or find it too tedious to try to, then again, you're just going to waste their time and yours.  One of the rules of the forum is that posts contribute constructively to a discussion, and yours stopped doing so days ago, if they ever did to begin with.

For 37 pages, your "on-topic" posts have consisted of argument from incredulity after argument from incredulity after argument from incredulity.  It's always that you don't understand, or you don't see, and thus it can't be true, which is a textbook argument from incredulity.  You keep saying that people should show you where you're wrong; well, I've done that over two dozen times by now, and you're still posting the same tiresome, rebutted arguments you've been posting all along.  I'm getting just a little bit tired of it.

Quote from: DrTesla
I think that I nailed that you were conflating on purpose or just confused in your previous point.  If not, show me where I am wrong.   IC systems are not needed for survival in itself, it just can increase survival.  You were arguing that IC systems are not needed for survival.  They can survive without them so they are not complex.  If I mispresented your argument then show me where I did that in specifics.   No more empty rhetoric about how dumb I am.
I have been doing this all along.  You just aren't willing to listen.  Instead, you find my long posts 'tedious', and claim that they're "walls of text" as an excuse to avoid reading them.  Do you have even the slightest inkling of how that makes you look?  You might note that I brought up the concerns about your competence and ability to understand the subject when you tried to pull that little stunt.

young Jaime.  He is a good kid but he does not yet have wisdom.
I don't think you have the slightest idea of my actual age.  But by all means, give me a ballpark estimate.

Quote from: DrTesla
all i asked him to do was break up his responses because I end up having to delete several of my previous points in my response.   wall of text hurts my eyes.
I have to do the same thing when someone responds to me.  So why are you so special that you shouldn't have to, huh?

Besides, quoting your post(s) like I do helps to separate mine to make it easier to read.  If you're actually having trouble reading that, then it begs the question of how you expected to deal with actual scientific and scholarly evidence in support of evolution.  Or did you think that you could just charge in with a bit of logic and sway everyone to your side?

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12670
  • Darwins +332/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1068 on: October 29, 2013, 05:25:16 PM »
Jaime is 43 years old. Did I win? Where's my cookie? I WANT MY COOKIE!

;)

-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 Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1338
  • Darwins +100/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1069 on: October 29, 2013, 07:31:18 PM »
There is no way gradual change can lead to an IC system because there is no functional precursor to an IC system

and you have yet to show an IC system.

And you STILL have yet to show an IC system.
It's one of the reasons I'm an atheist today.  I decided to take my religion seriously, and that's when it started to fall apart for me.
~jdawg70

Offline jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5051
  • Darwins +578/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1070 on: October 29, 2013, 08:38:33 PM »
Never mind – you can have this point in your favour so we can move on to the real meat and potatoes of deleterious/lethal mutations.
Why, thank you kindly for your generosity.

That was only a little sarcastic.  While I'm glad that you're smart enough to realize that not all points are worth fighting over, it is a little annoying to have you only grant something because you want to focus on other points.  But nevermind that.  I'm not all that annoyed, because I know that fecundity is a complicated subject, and while I do have a basic understanding of it, I don't understand it nearly as well as I do evolutionary theory.

Quote from: William
I never said you did say that.  I said it myself by way of explanation.  Please look at what I said again. If a population is exposed to nuclear radiation (causes mutations – many lethal) they don’t respond by having more babies.
Look, you missed my point again.  My point is that fecundity increases partially based on if a higher percentage of a population's offspring dies, especially over multiple years, especially if food sources remain steady.  It doesn't matter why they die - whether it's due to predators, disease, lethal mutations, or other things.  Life appears to respond to death with the urge to create more life.

Quote from: William
In this case, nuclear radiation … Firstly, neither the population gene pool nor the individuals know (without scientific investigation – an unnatural intervention) when gametes are dying and defective – but they might find it harder to conceive.  Secondly, if they do conceive, the rate of spontaneous miscarriages will probably be higher.  They might try again and again before success, and more of the kids might die before they in turn reach reproductive age – but in many cases kids will die too late for the parents to compensate by trying again.  All these factors cause a marked decrease in realised fecundity:
Oh, you're just talking about human reproduction?  Next time, specify that.  I was talking about animal reproduction in general and the effects on generational levels of organisms.

Quote from: William
So Jaimehlers,  the evidence says you are dead wrong – fecundity in the Ukraine has done exactly the opposite to what you predicted or expected  :)
The Chernobyl disaster was only a single generation ago, though - what was it, 1986?  There simply hasn't been time for the increased likelihood of offspring deaths to have the effects I predicted on fecundity.  Give it a generation or two - basically, enough time for the surviving children to come to sexual maturity and start reproducing themselves, and you'd see something more akin to the way humans dealt with the likelihood of a child's death for most of history.  You have to remember, the child mortality rate was much higher historically than it is today, and the response was to have more children.  In England during the 1600s, for example, the infant mortality rate (children dead within 1 year) was almost 15%.  When you factor in other childhood deaths, 30% of all children in England died before they turned 15.  So the average birthrate was one child every two years - a much higher rate of fecundity than the one that those Ukranians you referred to in that study undoubtedly had, and even have today.

Quote from: William
Before I celebrate a debating victory I have to ask if the Ukraine result supports me?  Does it?  Maybe a slight victory only – because if it ever is rectified it'll take the usual fecundity in unaffected parts of the greater world population to, over time, assist in recolonising the Ukraine gene pool with good genes while Ukraine gene pool is gradually purged of all the crap mutations from radiation – purging by death of gametes, zygotes, foetuses, babies, toddlers, teenagers and young adults, as well as fertility problems with many of the surviving adults.  Some surviving Ukrainians will migrate elsewhere and contaminate other gene pools - but fecundity will not increase there in "response" either. Any bad mutations will, however, continue purging themselves.
Granted, but you're missing a much more serious point, one I stated early on - and thus why you should not celebrate victory just yet.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Ukranians represented all of humanity rather than a relatively small proportion.  All of the lethal mutations purge themselves from the population, granted, but there's a much higher number of them than normal.  Enough so that nowhere near enough children are born to sustain the population - as the trends from your study show, with the population declining by more than 10% over the next 15 years.  That kind of death rate is enough to seriously threaten the survival of the species as a whole if it keeps up.  And, worse, fecundity isn't enough to fix the problem on its own, because so many of the gametes end up carrying lethal mutations.

As I said, "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."  And while I was talking about animals in general rather than humans, the general statement holds true.  When most offspring don't survive till sexual maturity, then other causes of death are magnified and become a much more serious threat than they would in a population with a high enough birthrate.

Quote from: William
This is the first leg my argument stands on – deleterious/lethal mutations do fuck things up a lot but are purged and replaced through fecundity, so that in evolutionary time you‘ll be hard pressed to know the bad mutations existed unless science keeps a record for you.
But it illustrates what I was originally referring to as well.  If the rate of mutation is high enough, you have a serious problem on your hands, one that might 'fix' itself by eventually purging the whole species.  It doesn't even have to cause the species to go extinct by itself, it just has to drop the population low enough.  Then you're on the razor's edge of survival, all because of a high rate of lethal genetic mutations.

Quote from: William
My opinion is that this is one of the least deployed but most powerful concepts we have when creationists and sneaky IC proponents tell us that bad mutations, if left to their own devices without godly intervention, will only destroy genetic information.  Bad genes destroy themselves.  They don’t accumulate in a population anything like the goddidit brigade so wish they did.
Which is well and good, unless the rate of lethal mutations is too high, for the reasons I mentioned above.  That's why I don't think the rate at which lethal mutations happen is particularly high in general.

Quote from: William
That was Part One.  Next part in a day or two - sorry I’m very busy at the moment.  But I can assure the next part will be full of exciting learnings about how prevalent deleterious/lethal mutations are!  And why the high rate of bad mutations doesn’t matter either.  And complexity can actually increase as a direct result of random mutations breaking things  :laugh:
Well, I'll be interested in reading it.  I'm always open to learning new things.  But I hope you learned something as well from what I brought up here.

Offline median

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1848
  • Darwins +201/-16
  • Gender: Male
  • Yahweh: Obviously not obvious.
    • Talk Origins
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #1071 on: October 29, 2013, 09:05:56 PM »
Even if a a lifeform dies after an IC system fails,  that does not mean it was not IC.   IC just means that specific system would become non-functional if it did not have one of its parts.   What happens after that is irrelevant.   The point of IC is how did all the parts get there in a gradual way if there is no functional precursor.

I am now prepared to accept your apology for doubting me.


"I am now prepared to accept your apology for attempting logically fallacious arguments to back your mere assertions."  Could you get anymore childish?
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 #1072 on: October 29, 2013, 09:11:02 PM »
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan