"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

mickrock · 03-02-2013 6:49pm

expectationlost wrote: »

life wasn't just acccidently but inevitable. :cool:

I suppose it's inevitable that it happend by chance only if you don't think about it too deeply.

Obliq · 03-02-2013 6:57pm

mickrock wrote: »

I suppose it's inevitable that it happend by chance only if you don't think about it too deeply.

Oh noes.

Well, I just enjoy the wonder of chance - there is quite enough deep meaning in being a little mote of life in this unimaginably vast universe without trying to make this little mote of life specially put here by a sky fairy.

I hope you're going to watch the program?

expectationlost · 04-02-2013 12:44pm

mickrock wrote: »

I suppose it's inevitable that it happend by chance only if you don't think about it too deeply.

i think he strongly made his point in the first ep

http://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/296595461207375872
Listened to "Thought for the Day". Science's explanation for life's complexity is NOT that it emerged by chance. Precisely the opposite!

mickrock · 04-02-2013 10:26pm

expectationlost wrote: »

i think he strongly made his point in the first ep

http://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/296595461207375872
Listened to "Thought for the Day". Science's explanation for life's complexity is NOT that it emerged by chance. Precisely the opposite!

Atheists who believe that the origin of life didn't happen by chance.

Whatever next?

The Mad Hatter · 04-02-2013 10:58pm

mickrock wrote: »

Atheists who believe that the origin of life didn't happen by chance.

Whatever next?

Who let you out of the sack?

Sarky · 05-02-2013 2:47am

mickrock wrote: »

Atheists who believe that the origin of life didn't happen by chance.

Whatever next?

Oh just stop it, you're embarrassing yourself. And read a book or two on evolution like we keep asking. You'll never understand it if you keep running away from it like a big girl's blouse.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 4:11am

Sarky wrote: »

Oh just stop it, you're embarrassing yourself. And read a book or two on evolution like we keep asking. You'll never understand it if you keep running away from it like a big girl's blouse.

You're getting confused again.

I was talking about the origin of life, not evolution. These are considered separate matters by people who talk about evolution. A bit of a schoolboy error there.

magicbastarder · 05-02-2013 10:24am

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

I find his manner of communication annoying and his personnel dress sloppy
Why he is not wearing a tie. An Oldham accent WTF

WTF indeed.

Doctor Strange · 05-02-2013 11:47am

mickrock wrote: »

You're getting confused again.

I was talking about the origin of life, not evolution. These are considered separate matters by people who talk about evolution. A bit of a schoolboy error there.

Then why in the name of sweet Zod have you spent the last month or two talking about increasing complexity?

Start a topic on abiogenesis if that's your concern.

kiffer · 05-02-2013 11:58am

Mickrock is back?
Hot diggity dang!

kiffer wrote: »

mickrock wrote:

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

kiffer wrote:

What.
Are.
Those.
Limits?[Citation needed]...

seriuosly, so what you are saying is that yo have no idea what those limits are.

mickrock wrote:

By this stage the limit has been pretty much reached on how much more dogs can change by selective breeding.Millions of years can make massive changes but the Darwinian mechanisms of random variation and natural selection don't seem to be capable of the job.

Don't seem to be capable of it according to whom?
A millon tiny changes add up.
1+1+1+ ... (thousand of operations ) ... +1=big number.

So...
What are those limits... roughly... I mean I don't expect much here just back up your comments a little.

Zombrex · 05-02-2013 4:49pm

mickrock wrote: »

I suppose it's inevitable that it happend by chance only if you don't think about it too deeply.

It didn't happen by chance, it happened based on fundamental laws of chemistry. Given these laws, and the size of the universe, life in some form is pretty much inevitable.

But thanks for demonstrate yet another topic you clearly don't know anything about.

Sycopat · 05-02-2013 6:59pm

mickrock wrote: »

I suppose it's inevitable that it happend by chance only if you don't think about it too deeply.

Nah, it's just how probability works.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 8:12pm

kiffer wrote: »

So...
What are those limits... roughly... I mean I don't expect much here just back up your comments a little.

You tell me. You seem to believe they're unlimited, based on no evidence.

The only "evolution" that has ever been obseved are the likes of the sizes of finches beaks and similar adaptations. These sorts of adaptations are then used as evidence for large scale evolution.

Based on this I'd nearly go so far as to label Darwinism pseudoscience.

Ziphius · 05-02-2013 8:21pm

mickrock wrote: »

You tell me. You seem to believe they're unlimited, based on no evidence.

The only "evolution" that has ever been obseved are the likes of the sizes of finches beaks and similar adaptations. These sorts of adaptations are then used as evidence for large scale evolution.

Based on this I'd nearly go so far as to label Darwinism pseudoscience.

I thought you said earlier that you did believe evolution occurs. Just you think it happens by some non Darwinian process you have yet to describe.

To be honest I cannot see your problem. You have already stated that.

Organisms have been evolving for millions of years.
Darwinian evolution does explain some of this evolution.

I don't understand why you believe Darwinism can explain certain evolutionary patterns but not others. Particularly as you haven't provided any alternative explanation whatsoever.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 8:38pm

Ziphius wrote: »

I thought you said earlier that you did believe evolution occurs. Just you think it happens by some non Darwinian process you have yet to describe.

To be honest I cannot see your problem. You have already stated that.
Organisms have been evolving for millions of years.

Darwinian evolution does explain some of this evolution.

I don't understand why you believe Darwinism can explain certain evolutionary patterns but not others. Particularly as you haven't provided any alternative explanation whatsoever.

No, I didn't say Darwinism explains some of this evolution. I wouldn't regard adaptations as evolution.

Nobody argues that adaptations occur but it's wishful thinking that lots of such adaptations will lead to increased complexity.

Ziphius · 05-02-2013 8:46pm

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.

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

What did you mean by this then?

dlofnep · 05-02-2013 8:56pm

mickrock wrote: »

No, I didn't say Darwinism explains some of this evolution. I wouldn't regard adaptations as evolution.

Nobody argues that adaptations occur but it's wishful thinking that lots of such adaptations will lead to increased complexity.

You've already stated that you do not know what the term species means, and as such - are are not in a position to comment on what evolution is.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 9:08pm

Zombrex wrote: »

It didn't happen by chance, it happened based on fundamental laws of chemistry. Given these laws, and the size of the universe, life in some form is pretty much inevitable.

It's not pretty much inevitable that life happened because of the laws of chemistry and the size of the universe.

You only say that because there is life. The existence of life doesn't prove that natural laws and chance were responsible, as you seem to think.

dlofnep · 05-02-2013 9:14pm

mickrock wrote: »

It's not pretty much inevitable that life happened because of the laws of chemistry and the size of the universe.

You only say that because there is life. The existence of life doesn't prove that natural laws and chance were responsible, as you seem to think.

It's not chance, it's probability.

If you did the lotto tomorrow, there would be a small chance that you would win it. But there is a high probability that someone would win it.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 9:19pm

Ziphius wrote: »

What did you mean by this then?

I meant an organism can adapt to a certain degree by Darwinian mechanisms but no increases in complexity have ever been observed.

It's a big leap of faith from Darwinism explaining minor adaptations to it explaining large scale evolution.

Ziphius · 05-02-2013 9:22pm

mickrock wrote: »

I meant an organism can adapt to a certain degree by Darwinian mechanisms but no increases in complexity have ever been observed.

It's a big leap of faith from Darwinism explaining minor adaptations to it explaining large scale evolution.

Congratulations! You have taken the first step on the road to being a real Darwinist.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 9:25pm

Ziphius wrote: »

Congratulations! You have taken the first step on the road to being a real Darwinist.

What's a real Darwinist?

The Mad Hatter · 05-02-2013 10:33pm

mickrock wrote: »

What's a real Darwinist?

One who doesn't apply arbitrary limits for no reason.

endacl · 05-02-2013 10:34pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

One who doesn't apply arbitrary limits for no reason.

I suspect there is a reason. Perhaps not an entirely rational one, but a reason nonetheless.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 11:02pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

One who doesn't apply arbitrary limits for no reason.

They are not arbitary limits. They are the limits seen in real life situations.

Making unjustified extrapolations isn't very scientific. Can anyone explain how Darwinism even qualifies as a proper theory? I regard it as no more than a hunch.

The Mad Hatter · 05-02-2013 11:05pm

mickrock wrote: »

They are not arbitary limits. They are the limits seen in real life situations.

What are they, specifically?

Zombrex · 05-02-2013 11:19pm

mickrock wrote: »

It's not pretty much inevitable that life happened because of the laws of chemistry and the size of the universe.

Yes it is. Self replicating molecules form under a variety of circumstances that would be common throughout the universe, using atoms and molecules that would also be common.

mickrock wrote: »

You only say that because there is life.

No, I say that based on what we know about the laws of chemistry, the formation of self replicating molecules, what we know about the quantify of necessary atoms in the universe and what we know about the size of the universe.

I appreciate you probably don't know anything about any of these things, but since when has your ignorance meant anything.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 11:19pm

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What are they, specifically?

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

The emergence of anything novel has never actually been observed.

Zombrex · 05-02-2013 11:22pm

mickrock wrote: »

No, I didn't say Darwinism explains some of this evolution. I wouldn't regard adaptations as evolution.

Nobody argues that adaptations occur but it's wishful thinking that lots of such adaptations will lead to increased complexity.

How do you account for genetic mutations that increase the size (and thus complexity) of the DNA sequence if, as you say, mutation cannot increase complexity?

dlofnep · 05-02-2013 11:26pm

mickrock wrote: »

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

What limits the mutations?

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments