I wonder how strong the faith will be when exam time comes around? Will he be writing answers based on what he's been saying to us?

(April 8, 2016 at 10:45 am)Esquilax Wrote:

---

(April 8, 2016 at 10:22 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that there is some equivocating here.... In that what is meant by evolution.  Normally  what is being contested isn't gradual change over time, but common descent.  If I am incorrect in this assumption, then I am curious what do you think wouldn't work in biology without universal common descent evolution?

Contextually, it was pretty clear to me that AAA wasn't just talking about common descent, though. He was fairly dismissive, to my reading, of the view that gradual change over time could happen, in his initial response to me. Of course, he's welcome to correct me on that.

Quote: Positive claims are made, in that complex specified information, and irreducible complexity are indicative of design. This is because these things require a choice and planning. Something which an intelligence is capable of, and which natural forces and chance are not. This can be tested by probability studies and knockout tests.

---

Um, you are aware that arguments from ignorance don't count, right? I asked for positive evidence, and you handed me a pair of negative arguments, especially in regard to the latter. Don't believe me? Let's write out the actual formulation of those arguments, then:

"DNA contains complex, specified information, and I can't see how that could happen without design," is, aside from the utterly meaningless buzzword-ey nature of the key phrase there, seeking to get to design by removing evolution from the possibility space. It's a negative argument based in ignorance: evolution can't explain the existence of this information, therefore god.

Irreducible complexity is even worse, because it's just "I can't see how these would have evolved, therefore they're irreducibly complex." Never mind that in every instance of supposed irreducible complexity, a reducibly complex answer has been found, the point is that, again, it's an argument that relies on evolution not having an answer, rather than actual positive evidence. Both of these claims just seek to reduce the pool of possible answers, fallaciously assuming there are only two options in there, rather than actively pointing to one particular option.

I think that you are rephrasing the points to make your case. If I rephrase your arguments, to "I can't see how this evidence could happen without evolution..." would that mean that the case for evolution is nothing but negative arguments? It seems to me, that when you make a positive case for one thing, then you are necessarily excluding other alternatives. The criticism of a purely negative argument is that you are assuming your position, by negating the opposing position. You are not given positive reasons to connect the evidence to your position. If there are only two options, then this is legitimate, if there are other options, then it is not.

We can get into the claims of complex specified information, and irreducible complexity. I think that your statement that in every instance an answer has been found is overstated. But; again, I don't want to go into too many directions at once (nothing really get's discussed then).

(April 8, 2016 at 11:24 am)Jenny A Wrote: Imagine the blue prints for a skyscraper interleaved with schematics of huts and wooden trusses misspelled or misdrawn, with notes to ignore the interleaved material.  Because that is how genetic blueprints work.

Why it's almost as if the design of living orgaanisms is needlessly complex due to common decent without the ability to remove past mistakes, features, or instructions except gradually through many generations.  

Actually in programming and prints for machine controls, I see this quite often.

(April 8, 2016 at 11:55 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I think that you are rephrasing the points to make your case.  If I rephrase your arguments, to "I can't see how this evidence could happen without evolution..." would that mean that the case for evolution is nothing but negative arguments?

I'm not rephrasing anything, and you couldn't do that with my arguments either. Do I really have to show you the difference between a positive and negative evidence?

The key claim at the core of irreducible complexity is that certain biological forms are irreducibly complex, I don't think I'm being controversial in thinking that, yes? But that claim is fundamentally negative in nature, it's solely a suggestion that the claimant cannot think of a way that a given form could have evolved, and has therefore concluded that it could not happen: they cannot find a way to reduce the components without robbing the organism of its function, so there must not be a way for that to happen. That's the lynchpin of irreducible complexity as an argument, there is no argument without it, and the sole purpose of that lynchpin is to take evolution off the table as an answer to the question. In this way, it is a negative argument.

Meanwhile, take my piece on Samotherium, for example. I was asked how I could determine that the fossil Samotherium was related to modern day giraffes, and what I sought to do was not just eliminate all the other options, which would have constituted a negative argument. Starting with a simple basis, that genetic similarity tends to correlate with morphological similarity, and that genetic similarity is also an indicator of two organisms being related, I constructed a case for the idea that the two were related: we have a modern short-necked giraffid species with which to make a comparison of neck bones, and if we compare all three, what we find is perfect similarity (down to the angle the vertebrae sit at) with both short and long-necked giraffids in the lower vertebrae, and at the higher vertebrae we find a similarity only between Samotherium and modern giraffes, which is what we'd expect because obviously the short-necked animal wouldn't have the longer neck bones. Establishing a remarkably identical morphological profile allows us to conclude a genetic similarity due to the previously established gene/morphology connection, and that is how we reasonably conclude that Samotherium is a relative of the giraffe. This is what a positive argument looks like: it's a case building toward one conclusion, and not away from the alternative.

Now, yes, by definition a positive case will also lead one away from the alternatives, but what matters is how you get there, not where you get to. It's like if you're on a road leading to destination A and destination B, and what I'm talking about here is the difference between traveling to destination A because that's where you're going, and ending up in destination B simply because you're reversing away from A. If you end up in B because of the latter motivation, did you really end up in B because of a reasonable, conscious conclusion on your part?

Quote: It seems to me, that when you make a positive case for one thing, then you are necessarily excluding other alternatives.  The criticism of a purely negative argument is that you are assuming your position, by negating the opposing position.  You are not given positive reasons to connect the evidence to your position.

So where is the positive evidence in irreducible complexity?

Quote: If there are only two options, then this is legitimate, if there are other options, then it is not.

And how did you determine there were only two options?

Quote:We can get into the claims of complex specified information, and irreducible complexity.  I think that your statement that in every instance an answer has been found is overstated.  But; again, I don't want to go into too many directions at once (nothing really get's discussed then).

I think the larger issue is that, even if we have an example of supposed irreducible complexity that doesn't currently have an evolutionary response, all you're left with is an argument from ignorance that there isn't an evolutionary response, so irreducible complexity wins by default. That's sort of the problem with all of this: in a world without responses to your ID arguments, you're still left with no positive evidence indicating ID, just problems with evolution.

(April 8, 2016 at 10:08 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 12:38 am)AAA Wrote: Why is design magic to you people? Engineers are not magicians. 

They would be if they had to poof the things they made out of nothing. Don't play games with us.

Quote:And yeah, a 5 second google search can also tell you that the earth is hollow. You can literally find anything on the internet. Also don't assume that all citations represent experiments, go read the primary articles. I guarantee they are highly speculative. That's fine, but don't pretend that it is the same as empirical/experimental science.

So what you're telling me is that you're a college student training to be a scientist... who refuses to do basic background research into a cornerstone principle of your field, even when many aspects of biology would not work if evolution were not a real, active phenomena.

And hey, I guess all those English Lit students don't need to know how to read, right? Reading isn't the same as literature! 

I view our universe similar to that of a video game, in which the characters have been programmed to a level of sophistication where they have the capacity to make decisions and have consciousness. We will likely one day be able to create a virtual reality with enormous complexity. Are they simply poofed into existence? No they aren't. 

I know the ideas of how it evolved. Once there was a competing solution of biomolecules. Eventually the cells began fermentation. This created an acidic environment to which the cell population responded by developing ATP driven pumps to move protons out. They then developed electron transport chains to move the protons out, which allowed the ATP pump to do the reverse and form ATP. Then gradually it developed into the sophisticated mechanisms employed by cells today. It's not that I won't do the research, it is that these ideas are not empirical, and therefore do not need to be taken as fact. In fact they should not be taken as fact by the scientific community. The rest of us should be scrutinizing these ideas until they can be supported more strongly. That is how ideas are supposed to be received in the scientific community, but you seem to want me to just accept ideas without empirical evidence as true when you like the philosophical implications.

(April 8, 2016 at 11:42 am)robvalue Wrote: I wonder how strong the faith will be when exam time comes around? Will he be writing answers based on what he's been saying to us?

From what I gathered, he's even expected to. Don't you remember? College with professors not being into peer review, big secret about the college's name because it might hurt it's reputation if revealed. So, in short, christian college.

The hard times will start when trying to find a job in the real world, based on these teachings.

(April 8, 2016 at 10:41 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 12:38 am)AAA Wrote: Why is design magic to you people? Engineers are not magicians. 

And yeah, a 5 second google search can also tell you that the earth is hollow. You can literally find anything on the internet. Also don't assume that all citations represent experiments, go read the primary articles. I guarantee they are highly speculative. That's fine, but don't pretend that it is the same as empirical/experimental science.

God is not an engineer; he is a magician. When he gathers up clay and breathes into man to animate him, that is literally how the "golem spell" is supposed to be performed. Your Bible says that your god used magic to create the Universe.


Some crackpot saying the Earth is hollow and Wikipedia having a properly formatted and cited article are two very different things. Interestingly enough, if you google "hollow earth theory," wikipedia comes up again, briefly describing the concept, its historical proponents, and the ample evidence against it (seismic, gravitational, etc.).


So yeah...the "not everything you see on TV is true" argument doesn't really apply to this. I didn't just dig up the first source that agrees with me, I chose one that was well supported. It's not like I went to Answers in Genesis or anything.


Also, the primary sources seem to mostly involve things we observe in cyanobacteria, algae, sea slugs, and other primitive life forms that haven't changed much in the billions of years the planet has had life on it. That's hardly speculative. We can see these more basic pieces of the evolutionary record still in use today by simple life forms.

You know not everyone thinks the creation story is exactly how it happened. 

Also all those organisms you mention have something in common. They all have a fully functional metabolism. And yeah, they say it hasn't changed much in the billions of years, but what does that tell you? At the beginning, when genetic diversity would have been minimal, the cells somehow were able to evolve a diverse and complex system of metabolism that requires many different enzymes working together. Then after there is a lot more genetic variation (in the following billions of years) we don't see them evolving much more. And what do you mean that is hardly speculative?!?! Why do these life forms that live at the same time represent pieces of the evolutionary record to you?

(April 8, 2016 at 11:42 am)robvalue Wrote: I wonder how strong the faith will be when exam time comes around? Will he be writing answers based on what he's been saying to us?

Believe it or not, evolution is not the focus of the courses. It is more about the important part of biology: how does this biochemical pathway function, how is it essential to the body's function, what regulates it, what pathologies occur when the genes are mutated?

(April 8, 2016 at 1:36 pm)AAA Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 10:41 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: God is not an engineer; he is a magician. When he gathers up clay and breathes into man to animate him, that is literally how the "golem spell" is supposed to be performed. Your Bible says that your god used magic to create the Universe.


Some crackpot saying the Earth is hollow and Wikipedia having a properly formatted and cited article are two very different things. Interestingly enough, if you google "hollow earth theory," wikipedia comes up again, briefly describing the concept, its historical proponents, and the ample evidence against it (seismic, gravitational, etc.).


So yeah...the "not everything you see on TV is true" argument doesn't really apply to this. I didn't just dig up the first source that agrees with me, I chose one that was well supported. It's not like I went to Answers in Genesis or anything.


Also, the primary sources seem to mostly involve things we observe in cyanobacteria, algae, sea slugs, and other primitive life forms that haven't changed much in the billions of years the planet has had life on it. That's hardly speculative. We can see these more basic pieces of the evolutionary record still in use today by simple life forms.

You know not everyone thinks the creation story is exactly how it happened. 

Also all those organisms you mention have something in common. They all have a fully functional metabolism. And yeah, they say it hasn't changed much in the billions of years, but what does that tell you? At the beginning, when genetic diversity would have been minimal, the cells somehow were able to evolve a diverse and complex system of metabolism that requires many different enzymes working together. Then after there is a lot more genetic variation (in the following billions of years) we don't see them evolving much more. And what do you mean that is hardly speculative?!?! Why do these life forms that live at the same time represent pieces of the evolutionary record to you?

We're still talking about the evolutionary record for photosynthesis, right?


Those organisms are part of the evolutionary record for photosynthesis (among other things, but I'm trying to stay on subject).


These organisms display metabolic processes and reactions that are simpler forms/pieces of the process known as photosynthesis, so they show how the process might have developed in steps from simpler ones.


It's hardly speculative because we can still study those life forms and come to conclusions based on direct observation. That is literally the opposite of speculative.

(April 8, 2016 at 2:03 pm)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(April 8, 2016 at 1:36 pm)AAA Wrote: You know not everyone thinks the creation story is exactly how it happened. 

Also all those organisms you mention have something in common. They all have a fully functional metabolism. And yeah, they say it hasn't changed much in the billions of years, but what does that tell you? At the beginning, when genetic diversity would have been minimal, the cells somehow were able to evolve a diverse and complex system of metabolism that requires many different enzymes working together. Then after there is a lot more genetic variation (in the following billions of years) we don't see them evolving much more. And what do you mean that is hardly speculative?!?! Why do these life forms that live at the same time represent pieces of the evolutionary record to you?

We're still talking about the evolutionary record for photosynthesis, right?


Those organisms are part of the evolutionary record for photosynthesis (among other things, but I'm trying to stay on subject).


These organisms display metabolic processes and reactions that are simpler forms/pieces of the process known as photosynthesis, so they show how the process might have developed in steps from simpler ones.


It's hardly speculative because we can still study those life forms and come to conclusions based on direct observation. That is literally the opposite of speculative.

All we have are incredibly complex ways to convert light energy to chemical energy and more complex ways to convert light energy to chemical energy. I'm not saying that there aren't more than one ways to do it, I'm saying that it is speculative to say that one led to the other. 

Transitioning from one to the other would require invoking many enzymes that we have no idea if they ever existed. It IS speculative. It is speculation based on observation, but it is speculation none the less. Why not speculate and say that the more complex ones have degraded and lost components to become the less complex ones?