"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

kiffer

Ziphius wrote: »

It's interesting alright. I imagine it is linked to seeing evolution and theistic faith as being in direct conflict. Only one can be true and therefore denying one confirms the other.

But surely that only makes sense for YEC creationists... I mean there are plenty of theists that reconcile the two without trouble.

endacl

Ziphius wrote: »

It's interesting alright. I imagine it is linked to seeing evolution and theistic faith as being in direct conflict. Only one can be true and therefore denying one confirms the other.

That one always makes me smile. How the grating concept of 'he's his own dad, and he's also a ghost' can be tolerated, but the discordance between evolution and jebus can't be.

Ziphius

kiffer wrote: »

But surely that only makes sense for creationist... I mean there are plenty of theists that reconcile the two without trouble.

Oh yes absolutely. Mainstream Christianity, such as the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican churches, sees no conflict at all. And there are many scientists with theistic or deistic beliefs. I didn't mean to say that one can't accept evolution and have religious belief. Merely that, among a minority, there is a perceived conflict. And in all situations faith is going to win out.

oldrnwisr

mickrock wrote: »

I do accept that evolution happened.

I think it's more honest for science to say that it doesn't know how evolution happened rather than blindly accepting the unproven mechanism of natural selection as fact. It seems to be the case that a bad answer is better that no answer at all.

I'm going (against my better judgement) to give you the benefit of the doubt because from your posts it seems to me that you don't have a scientific background and really have adopted your position because you've been taken in by one too many creationists videos that are all flash and no photo.

Firstly, with regard to the highlighted sentence above, you're right, well kinda. I mean I wouldn't phrase it the way you did but you're not entirely wrong. It's something we call model-dependent realism. Basically, the way our brains interpret the information which comes from our senses is by making a model of the world. As long as this model agrees to what we see then we stick with it. When we see something which conflicts with the model we can choose to either adapt or scrap the model. When we have two models attempting to explain the same observations then we tend to pick the one which a) better explains the available evidence and b) makes the least assumptions. So it is with evolution. Evolution is an observed process in nature and natural selection (descent with modification) is the best explanation we have to explain our observations. There is no other model on the table which comes close to explaining the evidence as completely as natural selection does. It may be that sometime in the future we may discover new evidence which may alter our model but right now it is the best explanatory framework we have and has survived more rigorous testing and scrutiny than any other theory out there (with the possible exception of QM).


Now as I was saying, I don't think, given your posts that you have a science background because you don't seem to understand how the scientific method works. In the quote above and this one:

mickrock wrote: »

You clearly believe it has been proven. Would you care to elaborate?

you use the term prove as if that means something. It doesn't. Theory is the highest level of confidence in science. There is no such thing as proving a theory. A theory can only be disproven. Similarly a hypothesis only attains the level of theory once it has demonstrated that the evidence supports it. A theory is not a guess or a hunch or an estimate. It is a well substantiated explanatory framework which explains a wide range of observed facts.

kiffer

Ziphius wrote: »

Oh yes absolutely. Mainstream Christianity, such as the Roman Catholic church and the Anglican churches, sees no conflict at all. And there are many scientists with theistic or deistic beliefs. I didn't mean to say that one can't accept evolution and have religious belief. Merely that, among a minority, there is a perceived conflict. And in all situations faith is going to win out.

I don't see why it would always win out... I mean isn't it basically ****ting on the wonders of creation to turn a blind eye to the nature of that creation?

Ziphius

kiffer wrote: »

I don't see why it would always win out... I mean isn't it basically ****ting on the wonders of creation to turn a blind eye to the nature of that creation?

Or to quote Galileo:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use".

Sarky

Barr125 wrote: »

I honestly don't believe you're real. I think you're a Poe spouting off articles from some creationist dictionary website. No one can be this ignorant and off-handed.

Have you met J C?

endacl

Sarky wrote: »

Have you met J C?

:D:D:D

kiffer

Sarky wrote: »

Have you met J C?

Has anyone?
Seriously... anyone?
I seem to recall that Wolfsbane did claim at one point that he could vouche for J C's credentials but it became apparent that he meant something more like "J C agrees with me, is therefore a good christian, therefore isn't lying about his qualifications as a scientist and mathematician but I haven't actually met him let alone seen where he works or studied".

Barr125

Sarky wrote: »

Have you met J C?

Do not speak its name!! Do you want it back in here with us!!!

kiffer wrote: »

Has anyone?
Seriously... anyone?
I seem to recall that Wolfsbane did claim at one point that he could vouche for J C's credentials but it became apparent that he meant something more like "J C agrees with me, is therefore a good christian, therefore isn't lying about his qualifications as a scientist and mathematician but I haven't actually met him let alone seen where he works or studied".

You mean her? Isn't one of the tags of this thread that JC is a girl?

mickrock

oldrnwisr wrote: »

A theory is not a guess or a hunch or an estimate. It is a well substantiated explanatory framework which explains a wide range of observed facts.

The "wide range" of observed facts that Darwin's theory explains doesn't include the emergence of complexity (novelty and innovation). It explains how an organism can change to a limited degree but not how it got here in the first place. People have been selectively breeding animals for certain characteristics for centuries and have found there are limits.

The fact that Darwinian mechanisms have never been seen to increase an organism's complexity puts the theory on a weak footing. I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.

dlofnep

mickrock wrote: »

It explains how an organism can change to a limited degree

What are the limits?

mickrock wrote: »

but not how it got here in the first place. People have been selectively breeding animals for certain characteristics for centuries and have found there are limits.

No, they haven't. There may be limits in the amount of visible changes one could potentially see in a short time-span like decades and centuries - but not in thousands and millions of years.

mickrock wrote: »

The fact that Darwinian mechanisms have never been seen to increase an organism's complexity puts the theory on a weak footing.

Complexity of what? Genetic complexity? Physical complexity? Social complexity? Intellectual complexity? What?

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

The "wide range" of observed facts that Darwin's theory explains doesn't include the emergence of complexity (novelty and innovation). It explains how an organism can change to a limited degree but not how it got here in the first place. People have been selectively breeding animals for certain characteristics for centuries and have found there are limits.

States there are limits, doesn't give any indication of what those limits are.
Thinks centuries are a long time.
Still gives no clarification on what is meant by novelty, innovation and complexity.

The fact that Darwinian mechanisms have never been seen to increase an organism's complexity puts the theory on a weak footing. I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.

Still doesn't have any idea what people have been saying...

Barr125

mickrock wrote: »

The "wide range" of observed facts that Darwin's theory explains doesn't include the emergence of complexity (novelty and innovation)

mickrock wrote: »

I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.

:rolleyes: Typical, I have a nice response to this all laid out, but because I now have to go do this thing where I do a menial task repeatedly in exchange for money, I have to leave. HOWEVER, I will return in the wee hours and unless oldrnwisr gets her before, by the power of Odin, YOU.....WILL......LEARN!!!

:pac:

endacl

Anybody up for a game?



Rows are a, b, c....

Columns are 1, 2, 3, ....

Winner is the first rational poster to find and quote a post for each square in the grid.

Actually, this should probably be posted on a Monday afternoon instead of a Friday night. I have no life...

DB21

endacl wrote: »

Anybody up for a game?



Rows are a, b, c....

Columns are 1, 2, 3, ....

Winner is the first rational poster to find and quote a post for each square in the grid.

Actually, this should probably be posted on a Monday afternoon instead of a Friday night. I have no life...

We're 2 or 3 off column 2 with mickrock anyway.

robindch

mickrock wrote: »

I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.

In the sentence above, you use the word "logical", where you mean "based upon evidence" and I've explained, at least once to you, that these are not the same.

Anyhow, regardless of the difference, your underlying mistake has been explained and clarified to you, in grinding detail, by many posters and you have ignored every generous response that's been written for your benefit.

At this point, as I said earlier on today, that's taking the piss and you've been carded for (a) soapboxing and (b) ignoring a string of moderator instructions to engage in civil debate, rather than just continually posting creationist sound-bites.

If, by this time tomorrow, you continue to post in your current witless style and fail to engage in civil, dialectic debate, you will be banned from A+A.

endacl

robindch wrote: »

If, by this time tomorrow, you continue to post in your current witless style and fail to engage in civil, dialectic debate, you will be banned from A+A.

Far be it from me to question a mod's modding of course, but is there anyway you could see your way clear to cut him a bit of slack until we've finished the bingo game...?

robindch

endacl wrote: »

Far be it from me to question a mod's modding of course,

Aw..., hugs

endacl wrote: »

could see your way clear to cut him a bit of slack until we've finished the bingo game...?

It's tempting, but standards are standards; likes have been drawn in the sand and all that.

As above, mickrock has 24 hours to decide whether he wants to debate honestly or stay paddling about in the kiddy's pond.

endacl

robindch wrote: »

Aw..., hugs :)It's tempting, but standards are standards; likes have been drawn in the sand and all that.

As above, mickrock has 24 hours to decide whether he wants to debate honestly or stay paddling about in the kiddy's pond.

Not to worry. There's probably enough material there if folks do a bit of a trawl....

Barr125

mickrock wrote: »

The "wide range" of observed facts that Darwin's theory explains doesn't include the emergence of complexity (novelty and innovation).

The fact that Darwinian mechanisms have never been seen to increase an organism's complexity puts the theory on a weak footing. I don't think it's logical that a series of many small steps resulting from a blind, undirected process could produce the complexity we see in life forms.

You don't think it does? Alright, let's look at an example and I mean really look, step-by-step. This won't be anywhere near as detailed or scientific as anything oldrnwisr could post but here it does.

Imagine a species of single celled bacteria, floating in waters/ooze of the Earth, hundreds of millions of years ago. We will say that they reproduce by single-cell division, is similar to the kinds of common bacteria we have today, are being preyed upon by an early species of ameoba and is identical to all other forms of bacteria around it(for the moment).

For those that don't know, bacteria (and other cells e.g. embryonic cells) reproduce by binary fission, in which the cell constructs a genetic clone or daughter cell of itself. The daughter cell shares identical DNA with the parent cell.

So we are now following 1 specific bacterium. It's going through its reproduction process and has unzipped the DNA double strand to create the daughter cells DNA as such:

These strands are made up of 4 bases: A, G, T and C. The form bonds together with A only ever linking to T and C only ever linking to G. Then the double is unwrapped, the free bases will attach and form new strands that were identical to the old ones.

So this bacterium is part way through duplicating the daughter cell's DNA when something happens. Either a base dislodges, inserts itself in the old strand or current bases swap positions. This is called a mutation .

So, for argument sake, lets say that this mutation causes the new bacteria to produce a chemical that the amoeba dislike. So the new bacteria are able to reproduce quicker as the amoeba is not attracted to them as a food source, while the other non-mutated forms perish from being eaten by the amoebas. This is Natural Selection at work.

Now, more generations of this bacteria are produced and the amoeba still feed off of them, despite having the chemical. So now, a new mutation arises, where the daughter cell loosely remains attached to its parent cell. This means the 2 cells will be in constant proximity and therefore will release twice as much chemical, meaning they're twice as unattractive to the amoeba as the rest of the non-mutated population. Natural Selection begins its work.

We are now observing a group of cells replicate and continue to grow. Then another mutation occurs. This one allows this cell to absorb water easier. The next mutation in the connected group of cells may be that the membrane is light-sensitive. We now see specified groups beginning to form. Certain cells mutate certain characteristics that benefit the group as a whole and those that don't are discarded. Repeat ad infinitatum. The grouped bacteria will continue to grow and mutate until they die out. No final purpose, no goal, just surviving their conditions.

(Note: the example above has had some liberties associated to it. One is that no examples of negative mutations were shown. However, this can be shown by replacing the repelling chemical with one that attracts the amoeba. This gives the non-mutated bacteria the advantage. The other liberty is that the mutations seem to happen every immediate generation. This is not the case in RL. It could take several hundred generations for a mutation to appear and another few for it to become the dominant allele of the species, if at all. )

kiffer

In before "yeah but how does the bacteria choose to mutate so as to produce a new chemical".

I fully expect either another day of soapboxing from mickrock and then when the ban comes he'll be all "ha! Evolutionists are afraid to debate me"...
Or an 11th hour attempt at engagement to avoide a ban and then go back to soaptown.

From here in the peanut gallery its amazing how little work it takes to waste so much of our time...
People writing lovely well thought out posts get "yeah but does that really happen?"
Then people go and find some evidence that it does, "yeah but that doesn't count or I'm ignoring it".
Why do you feel/think it doesn't count? "Prove that it counts".
How about you tell us why you think it doesn't? "No, I ask the questions and you answer them that's how it works"
We've answered a series of your questions why won't you answer a few of ours? "... yeah but things cant get more complex through natural selection"...

And the circle is complete.

robindch

kiffer wrote: »

I fully expect either another day of soapboxing from mickrock [...]

Well, let's see. The balls in his court at the moment.

mickrock

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they haven't. There may be limits in the amount of visible changes one could potentially see in a short time-span like decades and centuries - but not in thousands and millions of years.

The point I was making with selective breeding is that when an animal is bred for a certain trait a limit will be reached in a relatively short time. An animal bred for its size will not continually get bigger and bigger. There is a limit to how much it will grow.

Similarly in the wild there are limits to how far an organism can change by Darwinian means.

mickrock

Barr125 wrote: »

So, for argument sake, lets say that this mutation causes the new bacteria to produce a chemical that the amoeba dislike. So the new bacteria are able to reproduce quicker as the amoeba is not attracted to them as a food source, while the other non-mutated forms perish from being eaten by the amoebas. This is Natural Selection at work.

Now, more generations of this bacteria are produced and the amoeba still feed off of them, despite having the chemical. So now, a new mutation arises, where the daughter cell loosely remains attached to its parent cell. This means the 2 cells will be in constant proximity and therefore will release twice as much chemical, meaning they're twice as unattractive to the amoeba as the rest of the non-mutated population. Natural Selection begins its work.

Fine so far.

Barr125 wrote: »

We are now observing a group of cells replicate and continue to grow. Then another mutation occurs. This one allows this cell to absorb water easier. The next mutation in the connected group of cells may be that the membrane is light-sensitive. We now see specified groups beginning to form. Certain cells mutate certain characteristics that benefit the group as a whole and those that don't are discarded. Repeat ad infinitatum.

This is where you get very vague. You just say lots of mutations will happen that will confer an advantage. But you haven't explained how a series of such adaptations can give rise to novelty and innovation. Why should random mutations+natural selection+lots of time produce incredible complexity?

Mardy Bum

mickrock wrote: »

This is where you get very vague. You just say lots of mutations will happen that will confer an advantage. But you haven't explained how a series of such adaptations can give rise to novelty and innovation. Why should random mutations+natural selection+lots of time produce incredible complexity?

How about reading a book yourself?

doctoremma

mickrock wrote: »

Why should random mutations+natural selection+lots of time produce incredible complexity?

A little example to determine how you view 'complexity':
1. Two single cell organisms, living side by side, each performing the processes necessary to sustain them.
2. Two single cell organisms that come together (perhaps a mutation in a cell adhesion molecule that means instead of sticking to their substrate, they stick to each other). Each cell now finds that when a random mutation in a previously necessary gene knocks out function, it can still survive with the support of the second cell. Each cell gradually loses certain functions, but work perfectly as a unit.

In your opinion, in which of these two scenarios is the highest amount of 'complexity' displayed?

pauldla

robindch wrote: »

Well, let's see. The balls in his court at the moment.

Well, I hope play continues, because whatever about the questions being posed, some of the answers are fascinating. It's a pleasure to read informed comment. Thanks, folks!

Sycopat

mickrock wrote: »

The point I was making with selective breeding is that when an animal is bred for a certain trait a limit will be reached in a relatively short time. An animal bred for its size will not continually get bigger and bigger. There is a limit to how much it will grow.

Is there? What breed of animal do you think we've reached the size limits of? Give an example. You've been given plenty.

mickrock

doctoremma wrote: »

A little example to determine how you view 'complexity':
1. Two single cell organisms, living side by side, each performing the processes necessary to sustain them.
2. Two single cell organisms that come together (perhaps a mutation in a cell adhesion molecule that means instead of sticking to their substrate, they stick to each other). Each cell now finds that when a random mutation in a previously necessary gene knocks out function, it can still survive with the support of the second cell. Each cell gradually loses certain functions, but work perfectly as a unit.

In your opinion, in which of these two scenarios is the highest amount of 'complexity' displayed?

I would say they have equal complexity.

But are we now going to start quibbling over what complexity means? We all know that a fly is more complex than a bacterium and a horse is more complex than a fly.