(May 30, 2014 at 4:11 pm)Harris Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 3:58 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Could you just explain, for my benefit if you would, how any of the above actually disproves the theory of evolution?

Forgive me but all I read is a mixture of personal incredulity and arguments from ignorance, so please point out where I'm misreading this as I presume you wouldn't have posted this in order to evidence something.

Please read all of my responses to Esquilax

I did, but I want clarification on how a mixture of arguments from ignorance and personal incredulity adds value to a perspective that seeks to discredit the theory of evolution.

If your first point is not conducive to your thesis, I have to ask, why did you post it?

Please explain for my benefit because I'm trying to understand what the fallacious opening your reply to esq was supposed to prove or add to the discussion.

Thanks in advance for your explanation.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:48 pm)Harris Wrote: At many occasions, I disputed that CHANCE has no scientific value. There is nothing in nature, which has no cause for its existence.

Tell that to quantum foam.

Quote: If we do not have, appropriate scientific evidence that does not mean CHANCE prevail and outrun the scientific reasoning by mere axioms and postulates.

Wow, there's a lot wrong here. First of all, you don't have any evidence on your side, so there's no reason to preference your claims; at least we know that nature exists. Secondly, your "everything in nature" claim is idiotic to begin with as you have no evidence that things outside of the universe constitute "nature" or adhere to the same rules as the things within it... which also don't follow the rules you're demanding they do.

This claim is literally wrong at every conceivable level.

Quote: In case you are not a promoter of CHANCE, then what proposition you have to explain the origin of complex structures such as DNA code?

Chemistry. I mean, that's literally what DNA is: chemicals reacting together.

Quote:I’ll give you few quotes which perfectly fit to the intelligent design argument:

And I'll run through them real quick:

First quote: argument from ignorance based on faulty assumptions. No matter how unlikely abiogenesis might be that doesn't mean god is real by default, and more importantly, how the fuck is this guy deriving calculations of probability when he has no idea what things were like in the past, nor what is required for life to form naturally at all? His probability argument is based on nothing but bullshit, as he doesn't have enough data to form a calculation of probability. Also, 1981? Really? Thirty year old science is... well, out of date. By thirty years.

Second quote: again, argument from ignorance. "It seems unlikely" is not evidence for a designer, you actually need positive evidence for that. Interesting how you fail to present any. And again, you present a thirty year old source! Got anything from this decade? Incidentally, did you think I wouldn't check your source, and find the enormously negative reception it got from the scientific community, many real members of which declared it unable to pass even softball peer review? I also see that, curiously enough, the only positive reviews seem to come from creationists...

Third quote: and again, argument from ignorance. Change the record!

Quote:I had discussed two types of mutations, injurious and Positive mutations. In both cases, I argued that mutation does not produce anything new. I intentionally not touched neutral mutation, as it has no positive or negative effect on the organ. Neutral mutation happens when different triplet of nucleotides, codes the same protein. In the genetic code, each protein has three nucleotides, which identify a protein, but there are several other triplets, which can identify the same protein as well. Therefore, if a different triplet identify same protein that means there is no change at all in the protein formation.

Neutral mutation like other types of mutations do not add anything new to the organ.

Here's a mutation that confers a resistance, bordering on outright immunity, to HIV. That's new, in that it wasn't present before, and is now, especially if one inherits the gene from both parents. You're wrong again.

Quote:8 Examples of Evolution in Action are only postulates, which have no significance in the world of laboratory. Natural selection cannot justify these examples, as it is no more than a postulate whereas mutation adds nothing new and thus it goes in opposite direction to evolution.

If you're just going to say "nuh uh!" and not back up your assertions at all, I'm just going to dismiss them out of hand. Either provide some evidence as to why you say natural selection can't "justify," whatever that means in this context, these mutations, or kindly be silent.

Quote:These 5 seconds examples satisfy only naïve people who have no idea about evolution and they normally avoid going into the hassle for having scientific proofs.
To cut a long story short I will address the example of peppered moth only. This is one of the most popular among followers of Darwin, which they often bring to justify evolution in action.

Only one out of eight? Interestingly limited scope: I wonder how many fallacies I can spot here? Lemme just load up talkorigins before I go on.

Quote:It is discernible in nature that population of the same species have variations. If fragment of a population get isolated in some different environment then that fragment lacks some typical variants. This fact means that isolated fragment has lower diversity and it does not represent the whole population. In other words, an isolation itself is the cause of differences. The differences in populations are the result of genetic drift.

Don't forget natural selection, but that's basically correct otherwise.

Quote:When isolated population grow due to favourable environments, the genetic differences also grow due to genetic drift alone. This is how races are formed.

The mutations are random, but their persistence in a population is informed by their evolutionary benefits or detriments. That is evolution, that you're describing so far, so I'm a bit weirded out as to where this is going.

Quote: Therefore,

• Loss of variation (genes) does not give anything new.
• When isolation discontinue, recombination of genes return. Some variants may be reconstituted, but nothing new results.
• Race formation is the reverse process to evolution because evolution requires new genes.

This is just babble, and again, it's baseless assertion type babble that you haven't provided evidence for, and will hence be summarily dismissed. Feel free to go find some science- peer reviewed, mainstream, and up to date - that supports you. Otherwise... meh.

Quote:Black peppered moth is different from the white peppered moth because of isolation, genetic drift, and natural processes that cause reduction of genetic information.

However, in evolution, bird is the selecting agent for moth to be black or white. This postulate has no scientific foundation and it is ridiculous to count this postulate equivalent to an established scientific fact.

Why is it that you think just saying "that's ridiculous" counts as a rebuttal?

Quote:All right! Here is another one form the same Lee Strobel.

Don't bother. Lee Strobel isn't exactly educated on this issue. As to the quote... just describing what irreducible complexity is doesn't count as confirmation of it. You'd need evidence for this, something that you can't have, as irreducible complexity is nothing more than an argument from ignorance itself, and based entirely around negative claims: "evolution can't do this, therefore designer."

Besides, irreducible complexity already got roundly laughed out of a court of law for good reason. You got anything better?

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: I look at time in two different ways. One religious and second standard.

Religious view:
Allah is the creator of everything (including space). He regulates all events and actions in the universe. He determines to what extent His created beings would exist. In other words, He allocate age to every being. His creatures are time dependent, but He is not. Allah’s activities is time for His created beings. He is time Himself.

“Allah. There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him nor sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permitteth? He knoweth what (appeareth to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass aught of His knowledge except as He willeth. His Throne doth extend over the heavens and the earth, and He feeleth no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory).”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 255-
Quran


Standard view:
Aging + Relative motions = Human sense of Time

Please also check my response to Pickup_shonuff below

In other words, you're playing fast and loose with the definition of "time" in order to disguise the fact that your claim is not scientifically nor philosophically sound.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: Everything in the universe has a Local frame of causality that means everything in the universe is reliant on the laws that run the universe. However, the cause (whatever it maybe) that prompted Big Bang, transcends the scope of universe.

Yes, everything in the universe has a local frame of causality, which is the universe itself. You have no reference point, i.e. no local frame of causality, that is relative to the universe to describe it in terms that we can understand and apply to every day life.

You're attempting to say that the first cause must have existed previously to the Big Bang, but we are talking about a quantum state completely absent of time where these macroscopic principles you're trying to use do not apply.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: Causality without time within the scope of universe is not possible but what about the causality that originated the universe. Is there any reason to believe that before Big Bang time exist in similar way how we perceive it today?

There is no reason to believe that causality is a valid principle when time does not exist.

(May 30, 2014 at 3:59 pm)Harris Wrote: When to an evolutionist a genuine scientific evidence is presented as a fact against evolution, almost immediately he moved away from the scientific material and jumped into the areas of philosophy, theology, the worldview, etc. He just start throwing lots of smoke and name-calling and get people even not to listen to the message of science by essentially criticising the messenger.

Name one single documented instance of this actually happening.

There are openly creationist biologists, I don't see how such a claim makes any sense.

Harris the logical comes forth and gives us the qur'an... how unexpected... -.-'

DNA didn't just pop into existence all built up. It must have evolved from simpler self-replicating structures... RNA being a close relative.

Seriously, people are telling you to go learn about the things you're trying to inform us about.... it is clear that you are ignorant of what science tells us about those things. Go read up on them, but refrain from using your crappy biased sources.
Start on wikipedia, follow the references, seek them out on google scholar and learn.... it will be a slow process, given that there are now tons of articles on the subjects and few are attempts at summarizing it, but it will be worth it.
Like I said somewhere else, probably to someone else, your logic fails you due to wrong premisses. Endeavor to make your premises as correct as possible and you can't be faulted for them...
Do what you've been doing... and you're dismissed like a pigeon playing chess.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu

(May 30, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: http://evolution.berkeley.edu

Great site; however he won't read it. It's not in Arabic so it can't be true.

(May 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm)Cato Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 6:26 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote: http://evolution.berkeley.edu

Great site; however he won't read it. It's not in Arabic so it can't be true.

It's really hard not to stereotype the Muslims on this site, because... Damn.

(May 30, 2014 at 11:02 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:

(May 30, 2014 at 9:06 pm)Cato Wrote: Great site; however he won't read it. It's not in Arabic so it can't be true.

It's really hard not to stereotype the Muslims on this site, because... Damn.

There's nothing wrong with stereotyping, as long as you give each individual a fair chance to prove they aren't limited to the stereotype.

These guys have had plenty of chances. Nobody said, "Here's a Muslim. He's going to be an irrational Quran-thumper." They jumped right into their stereotype boxes of their own volition.

I do so hope that Harris returns to respond