Author Topic: The Impossibility Argument  (Read 30702 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DrTesla

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 417
  • Darwins +7/-102
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #348 on: October 22, 2013, 09:32:57 PM »
Now, take Behe and the Discovery Institute. Tell me, Dr Tesla, of any original research completed by the Institute? Then tell me of any which they published in peer-reviewed Journals. The Institute and their supporters say that the peer-review system means that as people don't like their ideas, they are kept out of journals yet that is not the case. The reviewers are looking to see if the paper has good arguments and isn't just assertions without evidence - the real problem here - either that or the papers have already had their ideas shown to be untrue, like the flagellum idea.

So Dr Tesla, come up with the goods - show us some of the Institutes's original research and the publication data. If it is not in a peer reviewed journal it doesn't really count as science.

http://www.discovery.org/a/18301

Some money quotes:
 ID movement has developed a diverse research program bearing fruit in the form of more than 50 peer-reviewed scientific papers.

Some of the most important and groundbreaking work in the history of science first appeared in published form not in peer-reviewed scientific journal articles but in scientific books. That includes Copernicus' De Revolutionibus and Newton's Principia. Einstein's original paper on relativity was published in a scientific journal (Annalen der Physik), but did not undergo formal peer-review.1 Indeed, Darwin's own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience -- his Origin of Species -- not in a peer-reviewed paper.

Moreover, important scientific work has not uncommonly been initially rejected by peer-reviewed journals. As a 2001 article in Science observed, "Mention 'peer review' and almost every scientist will regale you with stories about referees submitting nasty comments, sitting on a manuscript forever, or rejecting a paper only to repeat the study and steal the glory."2 Indeed, an article in the journal Science Communication by Juan Miguel Campanario notes that top journals such as "Science and Nature have also sometimes rejected significant papers," and in fact "Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize."


The Supreme Court Agrees

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that good science will not always be published in a peer-reviewed journal. In the landmark 1993 case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Court observed that while publication in peer-reviewed journals can be an indicator of legitimate science, it is not necessarily an indicator of good science:

   " Publication (which is but one element of peer review) is not a sine qua non of admissibility; it does not necessarily correlate with reliability, and in some instances well-grounded but innovative theories will not have been published. Some propositions, moreover, are too particular, too new, or of too limited interest to be published."

Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming "points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer."

Behe and ID  Research and Peer Review:
Other pro-ID scientists around the world are publishing peer-reviewed pro-ID scientific papers. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 09:39:58 PM by DrTesla »
"You want to know who just loves abortions? God loves abortions. He performs them all the time and not even for the money. "  NoGodsForMe

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

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12469
  • Darwins +295/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #349 on: October 22, 2013, 09:38:03 PM »
All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.

Indeed.  Truth is a distant second to this goal.

More rhetoric.

Hardly.  You've finally stated that your only goal is to rule out evolution (I assume you meant "Darwinian" rather than "Darwin", the latter not being an adjective).  It being your only goal, as you've stated, all other goals on here must come behind it.  Truth/honesty included, which explains a great deal about your behavior.
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 #350 on: October 22, 2013, 09:44:04 PM »
All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.

Indeed.  Truth is a distant second to this goal.

More rhetoric.

Hardly.  You've finally stated that your only goal is to rule out evolution (I assume you meant "Darwinian" rather than "Darwin", the latter not being an adjective).  It being your only goal, as you've stated, all other goals on here must come behind it.  Truth/honesty included, which explains a great deal about your behavior.

Your premise is truth and trying to rule out Darwin evolution theory MUST be at odds with each other.   This is a false premise. 

Thus,  we must conclude this is more rhetoric not empirical data and logical inference and induction.

Now I must sleep.   
"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 #351 on: October 22, 2013, 09:51:58 PM »
I never implied a God was a "better choice",  I said they were equal possiblities in terms of both seem supernatural at this point ie not explainable by science as far as we know. 

I thought agnostic means you don't care how we got here.   Clearly I care.    I tend to fancy there is an intelligent designer of some sort but I don't think there is an afterlife or that he has control over what happens to us in our lives.     I guess that makes me half religious idiot , half super cool atheist.   :)

WTF? Agnostic means "don't care"? From where are you just making this shit up? Agnostic does NOT mean that. And yes, we know you "fancy" all sorts of things. But your fantasy isn't reality. God is not an "equal choice" to a scientific hypothesis that is based upon actual testing, data, research, and evidence (no way, no how). Once again, you simply CANNOT explain a mystery by positing another mystery and that term "God" that you keep throwing around has no referent (and no coherent definition).

Have you ever heard of the God of the Gaps argument? B/c that is what you keep positing here. It's a classic fallacy (aka - The Argument from Incredulity fallacy). Look it up.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12469
  • Darwins +295/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #352 on: October 22, 2013, 10:31:18 PM »
Your premise is truth and trying to rule out Darwin evolution theory MUST be at odds with each other.   This is a false premise.

No, my premise is that you're uninterested in truth, and have just admitted such.  Whether or not one happens to be right, coming at a question with the sole goal of discrediting one side is not an honest approach.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5100
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #353 on: October 22, 2013, 10:41:23 PM »
It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.

Isn't that basically what you're doing?  You're saying that because the idea that life evolved complexity naturally doesn't seem possible to you, it therefore must have been designed (which is something that does seem possible to you).

no, i'm  just saying Darwin evolution doesn't explain how gradual incremental changes over time lead to complex structures and system in lifeforms because these complex structures/systems cannot function without one of their parts and the parts by themselves have no value, and also the parts had to be organized in a certain way for them to work together  to fulfill the functionality of the complex system/structure.   

It doesn't seem possible to me based on this observation.   All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.   You are conflating an implication of the ruling out of Darwin evolution,  that of intelligent design,  with me just trying to rule out darwin evolution.     Intelligent design seems more possible than darwin evolution in terms of resulting in irreducible complexity,  in a theoritical and logical sense.
Let's not play word games, shall we?  It isn't scientific to assume that something isn't true simply because it doesn't make sense to you, or doesn't seem possible to you.  That means that your opinion on this subject - that evolution doesn't seem possible - is not a scientific one.  That also means your approach, trying to rule out evolution based on that opinion, is not logical.  Indeed, it is highly illogical and irrational, because you are substituting a belief that you hold - that evolution is impossible - for actual scientific methodology.

The scientific method has six steps.  1.  Make observations; 2.  Formulate a hypothesis to explain the observations; 3.  Perform an experiment to test the hypothesis; 4.  Analyze the results of your experiment to determine whether the hypothesis is accurate; 5.  Revise your hypothesis as needed; 6.  Communicate your hypothesis to others so they can review it and test it for themselves.

You basically skipped steps 3-5 entirely.  You made an observation, that complex structures didn't seem like they could have evolved naturally, and formulated the hypothesis that evolutionary theory therefore wasn't true.  But you went straight from there to communicating your hypothesis to others - without having checked it on your own first - and worse still, you are basically refusing to listen to the people who are trying to tell you that your hypothesis doesn't work, and you're insisting that it's right because it seems more possible to you than evolution.

Science is not about what deciding what seems possible or impossible based on observations.  Science is about using data to check observations and hypotheses against reality.

It's bad enough that you didn't do that in the first place, but it's inexcusable for you to say that you aren't interested in doing it at all.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12715
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #354 on: October 22, 2013, 10:44:43 PM »
Darwinian Evolution and Evolution is the same thing; one just has someone's name attached to it. It isn't so much that people are trying to disprove Evolution, they are attempting to disprove Darwin--or to be more succinct: that he, not God, came up with Evolution. Therefore, the fight isn't over Evolution per sè, it's over a man being more intelligent than God.

-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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #355 on: October 22, 2013, 11:04:18 PM »
I never implied a God was a "better choice",  I said they were equal possiblities in terms of both seem supernatural at this point ie not explainable by science as far as we know. 

I thought agnostic means you don't care how we got here.   Clearly I care.    I tend to fancy there is an intelligent designer of some sort but I don't think there is an afterlife or that he has control over what happens to us in our lives.     I guess that makes me half religious idiot , half super cool atheist.   :)

NOTE TO PEOPLE WHO DONT READ ALL THE WAY THROUGH POSTS

Tesla has just identified as a non-afterlife DEIST.


In which case, it should be pointed out that irreducible complexity is different to intelligent design. IC asserts that a genetic structure cannot evolve in a sequential, or traceable manner. IC is the proposition that God interfered and inserted a whole bunch of genes simultaneously. Whereas, ID could also be the proposition that God keeps sequentially nudging evolution in important directions. That case of ID is indistinguishable from evolution.

With this in mind, IC is effectively the idea that God could not sequentially poke life into higher forms (because it's too slow or difficult), and would have to use massive gene insertion techniques, to create whole organs.
Humans, in general, don't waste any opportunity to be unfathomably stupid - Dr Cynical.

Offline Jag

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1879
  • Darwins +196/-7
  • Gender: Female
  • Official WWGHA Harpy, Ex-rosary squad
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #356 on: October 22, 2013, 11:05:05 PM »
I thought agnostic means you don't care how we got here.   
You really need to learn how to use Google. You're "understanding" of terms should an embarrassment to you with an internet connected computer at your literal fingertips.
"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 magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #357 on: October 22, 2013, 11:07:16 PM »
Darwinian Evolution and Evolution is the same thing; one just has someone's name attached to it. It isn't so much that people are trying to disprove Evolution, they are attempting to disprove Darwin--or to be more succinct: that he, not God, came up with Evolution. Therefore, the fight isn't over Evolution per sè, it's over a man being more intelligent than God.

-Nam

Nam, I'm a bit confused by this. On the face of it, one could almost draw the conclusion that you think Darwin somehow created evolution. Now, I know you don't think that so could you clarify the point you are making?
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12469
  • Darwins +295/-32
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #358 on: October 22, 2013, 11:09:34 PM »
Not sure how you could possibly get that from Nam's post.
I have not encountered any mechanical malfunctioning in my spirit.  It works every single time I need it to.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #359 on: October 22, 2013, 11:14:16 PM »
Not sure how you could possibly get that from Nam's post.

This:

It isn't so much that people are trying to disprove Evolution, they are attempting to disprove Darwin--or to be more succinct: that he, not God, came up with Evolution.


Bold mine. Some Christians accept that God is behind the process of evolution. To me, Nam's comment could be construed to suggest that Darwin is behind it. Like I said, though, I know he couldn't think that so I await clarification.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12715
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #360 on: October 22, 2013, 11:24:15 PM »
Not sure how you could possibly get that from Nam's post.

Oxymoron: brilliant idiocy.

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

Let's get back on topic, please.


Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12715
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #361 on: October 22, 2013, 11:25:46 PM »
Not sure how you could possibly get that from Nam's post.

This:

It isn't so much that people are trying to disprove Evolution, they are attempting to disprove Darwin--or to be more succinct: that he, not God, came up with Evolution.


Bold mine. Some Christians accept that God is behind the process of evolution. To me, Nam's comment could be construed to suggest that Darwin is behind it. Like I said, though, I know he couldn't think that so I await clarification.


Neither Biblegod  or Darwin is behind Evolution; Evolution is, and always has been, and always will be.

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

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1573
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #362 on: October 22, 2013, 11:35:13 PM »
I am trying to disprove Darwinism.   

Good luck with the Nobel Prize, no one else has disproved it.


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

Being an expert is so..oooo difficult. Is that the end of the Nobel Prize?


All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.

That Nobel Prize is looming again. Patience is a virtue, unfortunately ignorance is not.

"Nature has even rejected work that eventually earned the Nobel Prize."

Keep pretending to be an expert in your following posts. I like to laugh at how you confuse yourself.



« Last Edit: October 22, 2013, 11:47:30 PM by Foxy Freedom »
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

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

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #363 on: October 22, 2013, 11:47:28 PM »

Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming "points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer."


This is what I got, when I followed up on Dembski.

Dembski is a theologian and jack of all trades, who founded the evoinfo.org think tank. He has published this feature paper, but obviously there is no way to peer review it, since it's waffle, based on his idea of Law of Conservation of Information.
http://www.evoinfo.org/papers/ConsInfo_NoN.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

So, he's bitten off more than he can chew. First prove that LCI or Specified Complexity is even true, before using it to prove things.

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

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #364 on: October 22, 2013, 11:52:09 PM »
Not sure how you could possibly get that from Nam's post.

This:

It isn't so much that people are trying to disprove Evolution, they are attempting to disprove Darwin--or to be more succinct: that he, not God, came up with Evolution.


Bold mine. Some Christians accept that God is behind the process of evolution. To me, Nam's comment could be construed to suggest that Darwin is behind it. Like I said, though, I know he couldn't think that so I await clarification.


Neither Biblegod  or Darwin is behind Evolution; Evolution is, and always has been, and always will be.

-Nam

Then how is it Darwin, rather than his theory, that 'they' are trying to disprove? Thats what i didn't understand from your post.
Go on up you baldhead.

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12715
  • Darwins +337/-85
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #365 on: October 22, 2013, 11:59:43 PM »
Because Darwinism and Evolution is the same thing. Most Christians (and others) think they are two separate things. They know they can't disprove Evolution (why? I don't know, ask them) but if they stick Darwin's name to it (since it's his theory), then, they can properly argue against it.

They don't (for the most part) argue against gravity (as an example), if they did they'd call it Newtonian Gravity. Silly, ain't it.

I think that's the point.

-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 magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #366 on: October 23, 2013, 12:04:21 AM »
I see what you're saying. Don't see it myself, but thats oK.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1573
  • Darwins +105/-12
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #367 on: October 23, 2013, 12:49:10 AM »

lol, this seems like circular logic.  You assert we don't know how the first lifeform originated from non-life  but then you assert that it is not happening in nature anymore as though you have proof it happened in nature even 1 time.   


No, he's saying we don't know how the first life began and you shouldn't pretend to by the use of irrational arguments.


It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.    Until we demonstrate that it is possible for life to come from non-life then we have to conclude it did not happen.  That does not mean we have to conclude that there is a God.   The only answer is we don't know b/c we have not proved anything.


You just contradicted yourself. First you say, "we have to conclude it didn't happen". Then you say, "we don't know".

STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW WHAT IS IMPOSSIBLE!


Discussing anything with Tesla is like discussing something with two idiots at the same time. He is so busy contradicting himself that he never reads or tries to understand what other people write.
The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

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

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2703
  • Darwins +115/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #368 on: October 23, 2013, 03:15:38 AM »

I never implied a God was a "better choice",  I said they were equal possibilities in terms of both seem supernatural at this point ie not explainable by science as far as we know. 

I thought agnostic means you don't care how we got here.   Clearly I care.    I tend to fancy there is an intelligent designer of some sort but I don't think there is an afterlife or that he has control over what happens to us in our lives.     I guess that makes me half religious idiot , half super cool atheist.   :)

Well to start with, have you looked up abiogenesis anywhere to find out what we already know? Have a look here at the Wiki to see a summation of our present knowledge. You will see that far from being in the dark we have quite a few ideas that are being worked on - especially the 60s experiment, the Miller–Urey experiment, which produced quite a lot of building blocks of life in a very short time. 

So we are on our way to explaining the origins of life and have quite a lot of work done. Now, we ought to compare the work done to demonstrate the existence of a god. Let's see..... we have... Oh, the various holy books, philosophy and.... See the difference? There is nothing to show that we ought even to consider another being to explain the origin of life - it only adds complications such has who or what made the god.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline William

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3564
  • Darwins +92/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #369 on: October 23, 2013, 04:29:33 AM »
lol, this seems like circular logic.
Nice dodge. Dive into a new topic of abiogenesis to avoid dealing with the problems you're having with your own claims about the  "irreducible complexity" of penises and flagella and such like.

If you want to talk in detail about abiogenesis then start another thread, or read the ones already freely available (search function) for your edification.  And if you do start a thread on abiogenesis, please be ready to explain how your clever deity assembled itself and its knowledge from non-life so we don't get bogged down in the quagmire of the mother of all circular logics.

Just briefly before we get back onto the topic of this thread let us clear up one little piece of your nongness on abiogenesis:
How do we know it isn't happening in nature anymore? 
In an environment of non-life, when and where the first self-replicating biopolymers would have formed, there could have been no existing microbial forms ... or let's call them "bugs" for our purposes here. 

Nowdays (on earth) at this stage of evolution the place is totally smothered in bacteria ... sorry "bugs".  Any biopolymers floating around are "num-nums" for "bugs".  (I'm using words like "num-nums" because it seems to be appropriate for your current understanding of biochemistry.  I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm talking down but I'm trying to make it easier for you to absorb.)

Elsewhere in the vast universe, on fresh planets with no extant predatory life, some water and some energy gradients to exploit, I'd wager that abiogenesis is still happening.  But on earth the opportunity is long gone.

BTW how are you progressing with the homework I gave you in replies #306 - 308?  Are you advanced enough yet to discuss how evolution goes much faster than you previously thought possible.  And how that speed plus duplication and redundancy can explain apparent IC?
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 #370 on: October 23, 2013, 07:43:33 AM »
It isn't science to just say we can assume life can originate from non-life in a natural process because other possiblities don't seem possible to us.

Isn't that basically what you're doing?  You're saying that because the idea that life evolved complexity naturally doesn't seem possible to you, it therefore must have been designed (which is something that does seem possible to you).

no, i'm  just saying Darwin evolution doesn't explain how gradual incremental changes over time lead to complex structures and system in lifeforms because these complex structures/systems cannot function without one of their parts and the parts by themselves have no value, and also the parts had to be organized in a certain way for them to work together  to fulfill the functionality of the complex system/structure.   

It doesn't seem possible to me based on this observation.   All I am trying to do is rule out Darwin evolution.   You are conflating an implication of the ruling out of Darwin evolution,  that of intelligent design,  with me just trying to rule out darwin evolution.     Intelligent design seems more possible than darwin evolution in terms of resulting in irreducible complexity,  in a theoritical and logical sense.
Let's not play word games, shall we?  It isn't scientific to assume that something isn't true simply because it doesn't make sense to you, or doesn't seem possible to you.  That means that your opinion on this subject - that evolution doesn't seem possible - is not a scientific one.  That also means your approach, trying to rule out evolution based on that opinion, is not logical.  Indeed, it is highly illogical and irrational, because you are substituting a belief that you hold - that evolution is impossible - for actual scientific methodology.

The scientific method has six steps.  1.  Make observations; 2.  Formulate a hypothesis to explain the observations; 3.  Perform an experiment to test the hypothesis; 4.  Analyze the results of your experiment to determine whether the hypothesis is accurate; 5.  Revise your hypothesis as needed; 6.  Communicate your hypothesis to others so they can review it and test it for themselves.

You basically skipped steps 3-5 entirely.  You made an observation, that complex structures didn't seem like they could have evolved naturally, and formulated the hypothesis that evolutionary theory therefore wasn't true.  But you went straight from there to communicating your hypothesis to others - without having checked it on your own first - and worse still, you are basically refusing to listen to the people who are trying to tell you that your hypothesis doesn't work, and you're insisting that it's right because it seems more possible to you than evolution.

Science is not about what deciding what seems possible or impossible based on observations.  Science is about using data to check observations and hypotheses against reality.

It's bad enough that you didn't do that in the first place, but it's inexcusable for you to say that you aren't interested in doing it at all.

Have there been experiments conducted that demonstrate cross species evolution?   I thought they mostly just try to say the fossil record backs them up.  I guess that pepper moth hoax that is still in our kiddie's science textbooks is their experiment.   

Darwin himself proposed that irreducible complexity of an organ would prove his theory wrong.   So obviously it is a scientific observation unless now you don't think Darwin was a scientist.  By the way, Behe knows a lot more than Darwin did, who didn't know anything about DNA and molecular biology,   and I thought I read somewhere that Darwin didn't do well in college and he actually did better in his religion classes than his science ones.   

I think if  Behe and others can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex and the Darwins can't no propose a logical Darwin evolutionary pathway to achieve the IC,  then when we weight the two opposing ideas together we must conclude Behe is right on this.    Again, it is logical and"scientific"  to argue that a process of slow gradual change in nature  is probably not going to be able to account for a complex structure/system in which all the parts must be present at once for it to work AND all the parts need to be arranged in a certain way so that they can work together.    Again, if one of these parts is removed, the system doesn't work so it cannot have evolved in a direct way by just enhancing the initial function.    The part by itself has no value , it only has value in the system.

So IC is about checking hypothesis, Darwin's,  against reality by looking at an end product that is irreducibly complex and asking,  can evolution account for this and what is the pathway?   If Darwin's people have no answer then doubt must be cast onto the theory.  I don't like it anymore than you do.
"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 #371 on: October 23, 2013, 07:50:44 AM »
Have there been experiments conducted that demonstrate cross species evolution? 

Experiments are not required.  Foxy Freedom already told you about ring species. They prove the concept.  But even without that proof, the thing you lack a deeper understanding of is the very word "species".  Read up on that and it should become clear.  But I'd prefer if you first looked at the other homework I gave you.

Git mit uns

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2703
  • Darwins +115/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #372 on: October 23, 2013, 08:10:56 AM »
Dr Tesla,

Please either tell us about anything in nature which is irreducibly complex - so, by definition, must have arisen as a whole and not just evolved using other parts (the flagellum)  and we will be the first to congratulate you on proving evolution is wrong.

Well, either that or concede there is no such thing.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #373 on: October 23, 2013, 08:24:24 AM »
I think if  Behe and others can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex and the Darwins can't no propose a logical Darwin evolutionary pathway to achieve the IC,  then when we weight the two opposing ideas together we must conclude Behe is right on this.    Again, it is logical and"scientific"  to argue that a process of slow gradual change in nature  is probably not going to be able to account for a complex structure/system in which all the parts must be present at once for it to work AND all the parts need to be arranged in a certain way so that they can work together.    Again, if one of these parts is removed, the system doesn't work so it cannot have evolved in a direct way by just enhancing the initial function.    The part by itself has no value , it only has value in the system.

This whole paragraph just got blurted out of your Creationist's Cut and Paste troll book.

Quote
I think if  Behe and others can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex

They can't demonstrate it.

Quote
Again, if one of these parts is removed, the system doesn't work so it cannot have evolved in a direct way by just enhancing the initial function.    The part by itself has no value , it only has value in the system.

Which part were you thinking of? Why would a system lose parts, if each incremental part was useful? Of course, if I look at the eye, and say an eye won't work with the retina removed, then this is correct, unless the eye then turns into salt and pepper stand. But, you don't get to play creationist picks what part to remove. The structures evolved in a way which is not irreducibly complex.

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 #374 on: October 23, 2013, 08:45:31 AM »



Which part were you thinking of? Why would a system lose parts, if each incremental part was useful? Of course, if I look at the eye, and say an eye won't work with the retina removed, then this is correct, unless the eye then turns into salt and pepper stand. But, you don't get to play creationist picks what part to remove. The structures evolved in a way which is not irreducibly complex.

You are not understanding my point, or what IC means.   Nobody is saying a system loses parts.   What we are saying is the structure needs all its parts to work.  If one part were removed, then the structure/sysem would not work.   Thus, the eye could not have developed in a piecemeal, incremental way that Darwins propose that it could via evolution.     It has to evolve directly into the complex system with all the parts there at once and arranged in a way that allows them to fullfill the function of vision, or whatever,  which would mean that it wasn't the gradual incremental change proposed by 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 Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2756
  • Darwins +222/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburger™
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #375 on: October 23, 2013, 08:53:19 AM »
  Thus, the eye could not have developed in a piecemeal, incremental way that Darwins propose that it could via evolution.

Incremental is not piecemeal. Piecemeal is assembled randomly.

I point out that you can't remove much of a human, without it failing. People can survive without gall bladders, but if someone removes your bladder, you don't last very long. All organs were accumulated in a way, where they made sense at the time.


Quote
It has to evolve directly into the complex system with all the parts there at once and arranged in a way that allows them to fullfill the function of vision, or whatever,  which would mean that it wasn't the gradual incremental change proposed by Darwins.

I respond that a God could think of a way to prod useful parts into an animal that would eventually become an eye. A God could produce an animal in a way that evolved, and was not IC.

The problem with IC, is when you think it through, you are saying something you don't realise. You look at the eye, and see an eye, but for an eye to work, it needs a whole optic nerve and visual cortex, plus the animal needs to know what colours mean, and what to do about it, and how to hunt. The whole instinct library needs to be installed, to work with an eye.

IC proposes that some kind of blind newt was walking around, and suddenly, in the next generation, there was an eye, with a brain ready to process it, and the animal knew how to hunt, and changed its habits to work visually.



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

Online jaimehlers

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5100
  • Darwins +586/-18
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: The Impossibility Argument
« Reply #376 on: October 23, 2013, 08:54:51 AM »
Have there been experiments conducted that demonstrate cross species evolution?   I thought they mostly just try to say the fossil record backs them up.  I guess that pepper moth hoax that is still in our kiddie's science textbooks is their experiment.
There is no pepper moth hoax.  That's a creationist lie that you've fallen for hook, line, and sinker.

It was a creationist professor of law, Phillip E. Johnston, not even a scientist at all, who first made this accusation in 1999.  Yet when actual scientists revisited the classic experiments in 1998, they took numerous pictures of live peppered moths resting on tree trunks.  This included gluing dead pepper moths onto tree trunks for an experiment, in this case to see how the density of peppered moths on tree trunks affected how birds might feed on them.  In other words, it was scientists reviewing another's work for errors, not trying to prove that some hoax existed.

This is all easily-available information.  I found it in five minutes via Google.  Yet it seems you'd rather continue believing in the "peppered moth hoax" that creationists bleat about than take in information that contradicts what you already believe to be true.  And this illustrates the more general problem you have here.  You would rather continue to believe in intelligent design and irreducible complexity than take time to learn about things that contradict those two ideas.

So yes, there have been experiments that have shown rapid evolutionary change.  1. Guppy males that live in water with less predators tend to be more colorful.  When scientists introduced predators into those waters, the number of guppy males born with dull colors declined sharply.  2. This is a scholarly paper that discusses the field of experimental evolution; while it's necessarily somewhat general, it's a good read.

Quote from: DrTesla
Darwin himself proposed that irreducible complexity of an organ would prove his theory wrong.   So obviously it is a scientific observation unless now you don't think Darwin was a scientist.
Nobody is disputing that Darwin was a scientist, but the fact of the matter is that he pioneered the work on evolution, which means that subsequent work would have tested his conclusions over and over again until other people were satisfied that they were accurate.  Furthermore, you are being dishonest here.  Darwin proposed a mechanism by which his hypothesis could be falsified - it is not the same thing as observing such an "irreducibly complex" organ, as you imply here.

Quote from: DrTesla
By the way, Behe knows a lot more than Darwin did, who didn't know anything about DNA and molecular biology,   and I thought I read somewhere that Darwin didn't do well in college and he actually did better in his religion classes than his science ones.
As I already stated, Darwin pioneered evolutionary theory, and other scientists came along afterward and tested it, over and over again.  So trying to claim that Behe was more knowledgeable than Darwin is irrelevant - Behe is standing on the shoulders of all those others who followed Darwin, so of course he has more knowledge available than Darwin did.  But that would be true of just about any scientist working in the field of biology today, so this point is totally irrelevant.

Quote from: DrTesla
I think if  Behe and others can demonstrate that something is irreducibly complex and the Darwins can't no propose a logical Darwin evolutionary pathway to achieve the IC,  then when we weight the two opposing ideas together we must conclude Behe is right on this.
All Behe and his ilk have ever done are point to some complex organ (such as the eye or bacterial flagellum) and then claim that it's so complex that it can't have evolved, so this is a moot point.  This is what you keep missing - these 'demonstrations' of so-called "irreducible complexity" are invariably attempts to dismiss evolutionary theory by fiat.

Not only that, but other scientists can and have pointed to flaws in his claims, such as Kenneth Miller's rebuttal of his bacterial flagellum argument.  Behe's response has been to move the goalposts - instead of actually trying to defend his claim of irreducible complexity on that particular organ, he moves on to claim that something else is irreducibly complex instead.  What do you think this unwillingness to defend his actual claims means, DrTesla?

Quote from: DrTesla
Again, it is logical and"scientific"  to argue that a process of slow gradual change in nature  is probably not going to be able to account for a complex structure/system in which all the parts must be present at once for it to work AND all the parts need to be arranged in a certain way so that they can work together.
It is neither logical nor scientific.  It is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy (which means it is not logical), and it does not make any effort to actually show (via experiment to test these so-called 'observations') that this process of slow gradual change could not have accounted for complex organic structures and/or systems, which means it is not scientific either.  I called you on this in my last post, and you don't seem to have gotten it.

Quote from: DrTesla
Again, if one of these parts is removed, the system doesn't work so it cannot have evolved in a direct way by just enhancing the initial function.    The part by itself has no value , it only has value in the system.
This is nothing but the same illogical (and more importantly, rebutted) argument from incredulity that you keep repeating.  Repetition doesn't provide veracity.

Quote from: DrTesla
So IC is about checking hypothesis, Darwin's,  against reality by looking at an end product that is irreducibly complex and asking,  can evolution account for this and what is the pathway?   If Darwin's people have no answer then doubt must be cast onto the theory.
No, irreducible complexity is about trying to fool people into discarding a valid scientific theory in favor of creationism.  What you keep failing to understand is that scientists have long since shown that these supposedly "irreducibly complex" organs are anything but.  Yet people who argue in favor of irreducible complexity (including you) blithely ignore those proofs and any other rebuttals of their pet belief and simply keep on repeating the same failed arguments, as if they can make it true by simply repeating themselves often enough.

Quote from: DrTesla
I don't like it anymore than you do.
I doubt that very much.  You don't 'like' something that you want to do?  If you actually didn't like it, you would spend some time actually checking irreducible complexity against reality - that is to say, you would check to make sure that something you personally agreed with was actually reflected by reality.  Instead, you just keep repeating yourself about how it's 'logical' and 'scientific', no matter how many times you're rebutted.