Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(April 5, 2013 at 7:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I think human morality is magic and is not a product of evolution. I don't even know how you can get offended from the perspective that it's a product of evolution
Moreover, from what I read, studied, watched, and perceived regarding science, and reasoned, it appears to me the irreducible complexity argument is correct, that some systems are irreducibly complex even though various details of it are not irreducible, or it at least shows severe unlikelihood of evolution from naturalism perspective.
Yes I took biology in high school.
When you say that you've read/watched/etc material pertaining to irreducible complexity, does this include arguments that specifically dismantle such claims? I'm not sure how it can appear one way or the other if you've engaged the arguments honestly. I'm sure that your example of irreducible complexity isn't as mundane as the old "human eye" argument, right? What examples (you needn't justify them if you don't wish) in biology do you perceive as being irreducibly complex?
April 5, 2013 at 8:52 pm (This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 8:53 pm by Mystic.)
(April 5, 2013 at 8:38 pm)missluckie26 Wrote:
(April 5, 2013 at 7:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I think human morality is magic and is not a product of evolution. I don't even know how you can get offended from the perspective that it's a product of evolution
Moreover, from what I read, studied, watched, and perceived regarding science, and reasoned, it appears to me the irreducible complexity argument is correct, that some systems are irreducibly complex even though various details of it are not irreducible, or it at least shows severe unlikelihood of evolution from naturalism perspective.
Yes I took biology in high school.
I'd be interested in the data you reviewed to come to your conclusions
Have you watched anything or read anything from Michael Behe? I tend to think like him, although, I don't agree with all what he says.
Oh I believe in evolution, I just don't believe in Darwinian evolution. There is a notable difference. I even tend to believe in common descent. The reason why the Creator would've created it like that, maybe for the sake of medicine and science and study of genetics.
However, I do believe science also proves some systems are irreducible complex (even though not everything in the system is irreducible), which to me, imply it was not all random mutations, but significant changes happened at one point that were not small changes over time.
This is not stated in certainty, it just seems that way, from seeing what various sides have to say about the issue and from what I reasoned and what seems like the evidence points to.
Quote:Also if evolution had been falsified, you would think we would not be having this conversation and the person who would have had falsified it would have gotten there noble prize.
Why do you believe that is the case? Is that the case with everything that has been falsified? If not, what makes evolution special in this regard?
Evolution is not special, I only defend it because it one of the strongest supported theories in existance, if a discovery was made that disproved evolution I would through it out and support the new theory. There is good hanging on to a theory that is wrong as it helps nobody and only hinders are progress.
So my point again is the only reason I defend it, is because (at the moment) it is the best theory for explaining how complex life on earth came to be, not the origin of life as that's a completely different theory altogether.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
April 5, 2013 at 9:01 pm (This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 9:55 pm by Mystic.)
(April 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm)LukeMC Wrote:
(April 5, 2013 at 7:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I think human morality is magic and is not a product of evolution. I don't even know how you can get offended from the perspective that it's a product of evolution
Moreover, from what I read, studied, watched, and perceived regarding science, and reasoned, it appears to me the irreducible complexity argument is correct, that some systems are irreducibly complex even though various details of it are not irreducible, or it at least shows severe unlikelihood of evolution from naturalism perspective.
Yes I took biology in high school.
When you say that you've read/watched/etc material pertaining to irreducible complexity, does this include arguments that specifically dismantle such claims? I'm not sure how it can appear one way or the other if you've engaged the arguments honestly. I'm sure that your example of irreducible complexity isn't as mundane as the old "human eye" argument, right? What examples (you needn't justify them if you don't wish) in biology do you perceive as being irreducibly complex?
It has nothing to do with saying "it's super complex...therefore it can't be reduced to simplicity".
Let's take the eye example. Let's work with that. There is so many steps in nature, and evolutionist say, look at these steps (which I believe ARE steps) and say, evolution happened with a bunch of even smaller steps....with a bunch of even smaller steps. To me, when you get really small, it doesn't simply work. Or doesn't appear to work because of lack of direction towards that by blind forces.
I researched into the eye, and I found both sides intelligent design fundies and those who refute it, don't understand Michael Behe's perspective, who is the founder of irreducible complexity.
If you want to know more about his view, you can see this video for starters:
He also believes in common descent and that all organism come from common descent. It's whether the mechanism can be purely Darwinian, that he disputes.
Some points to, is that he doesn't believe majority of mutations are controlled (designed), the majority of mutations can very well be random...just some design happens in nature time to time.
I say if this is true, perhaps X - Men powers is very possible in the future for us humans
The reason why it doesn't work small steps why, is because of the irreducible complexity problem. You can always get bigger muscles or smarter etc...but for a whole system, to develop..there is no direction leading by adding on part of that system that is essential but doesn't work, and that adding other parts later that don't work, then they come all together. Really, what is happening, is that since we clearly understand how an eye get's better and better or that giraffe necks grow and grow, etc...we think everything then is possible...by means of evolution. But I tend to agree with how Micheal Behe thinks. He is right about the mouse trap analogy and that adding parts that don't work all together, before they work all together, would be useless. And it seems analogous in this situation to biology, because you are adding stuff gradually by small mutations.
It's a way of thinking. It's the same evidence we are looking at. The same data. Just different reasoning.
(April 5, 2013 at 8:48 pm)LukeMC Wrote: When you say that you've read/watched/etc material pertaining to irreducible complexity, does this include arguments that specifically dismantle such claims? I'm not sure how it can appear one way or the other if you've engaged the arguments honestly. I'm sure that your example of irreducible complexity isn't as mundane as the old "human eye" argument, right? What examples (you needn't justify them if you don't wish) in biology do you perceive as being irreducibly complex?
It has nothing to do with saying "it's super complex...therefore it can't be reduced to simplicity".
Let's take the eye example. Let's work with that. There is so many steps in nature, and evolutionist say, look at these steps (which I believe ARE steps) and say, evolution happened with a bunch of even smaller steps....with a bunch of even smaller steps. To me, when you get really small, it doesn't simply work. Or doesn't appear to work because of lack of direction towards that by blind forces.
I researched into the eye, and I found both sides intelligent design fundies and those who refute it, don't understand Michael Behe's perspective, who is the founder of irreducible complexity.
If you want to know more about his view, you can see this video for starters:
He also believes in common descent and that all organism come from common descent. It's whether the mechanism can be purely Darwinian, that he disputes.
Some points to, is that he doesn't believe majority of mutations are controlled (designed), the majority of mutations can very well be random...just some design happens in nature time to time.
I say if this is true, perhaps X - Men powers is very possible in the future for us humans
I don't know why you call it Darwinian evolution, is beyond me. Darwin may have first discovered it and submitted it but that is 1000's if sciences in all disciplines that confirm its validity, that aside.
The Eye yes evolved in steps with a mutation that helped it detects light, and so on and so forth until we have the Eyes of today. You must remember all life came from very simple organisms and that this mutation would happen and if it was nutrel or benefited the organism in its environment it stayed and if it was harmful it was removed. So the Theory can be applied to anything that changes over time even smart phones have 'evolved' (though this was purely human refinement) I think you miss the point it happens very slowly over a long period of time.
And you starting at the wrong end. Of course it would be impossible for that to be created from random if it suddenly popped into existence. but if you start with the building blocks you can get very, almost impossably complex structures.
Evolution in animals is almost like LEGO, you start with one block and you slowly add and shape and work out the most effance design purly though trial and error but you really have no goal so the possibilities are endless.
So back to the eye, there were no need for eyes but as time when on in one environment (one with light) creaters that could see would have a advantage over the others in the day time. you have to look at it small and simple to big and complexe or yes it would not make sence.
And who every said that for something to happen you needed a goal?
It is all down to what would benefit the organism the most and a light sensing dot on a ammba or something like that could be the diffenance between when to come out to eat and when photosynaise (not saying there is a creature like that but it is possible).
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
April 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm (This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 10:18 pm by Mystic.)
That's the thing. Gradual steps suggest small changes. Small changes happen when it works best at each small stage. Each small stage has to be leading towards a whole system change. ie. little things that detect light towards a complicated system. Let's forget the eye. Let's go with any small system out there.
Let's talk about the mouse trap analogy because it's more simple. You have various parts right. But if they don't work together, then we have problem. It's useless.
You can talk about there being wooden planks on the ground in nature (analogy) but it doesn't mean the step of adding some useless parts that will lead eventually to a system of parts that is useful is possible. However, if it's guided by a designer, it can very well happen, because there is purpose.
In the case of the turning thing in bacteria. This is an example Michael Behe cites. What's the point of developing that partially while it doesn't work? It's a mutation, then another mutation, then another mutation, that is all leading to a system, yet in between, those mutations were not useful until you have the system. OF course, once you get the turner, then all sorts of random mutations by natural selection, can lead to positive change in that turner and make it better. But it's to get to that turner that is the hard part and seemingly impossible, and even seemingly more unlikely to the very least.
April 5, 2013 at 10:24 pm (This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 10:35 pm by Gooders1002.)
(April 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That's the thing. Gradual steps suggest small changes. Small changes happen when it works best at each small stage. Each small stage has to be leading towards a whole system change. ie. little things that detect light towards a complicated system.
Let's talk about the mouse trap analogy because it's more simple. You have various parts right. But if they don't work together, then we have problem. It's useless.
You can talk about there being wooden planks on the ground in nature (analogy) but it doesn't mean the step of adding some useless parts that will lead eventually to a system of parts that is useful is possible. However, if it's guided by a designer, it can very well happen, because there is purpose.
Ah this is were I can help you out, yes on its own a mouse trap needs it parts to work but all of the components for it could have been used for many other things, like the wooden board could have been a door stop or the spring used to make a childs toy or the metal bar used for a mini football post, but instead they were used for a mousetrap as it was a design that was simple and effective, there were probably a few prototypes before the most efficient design was made (although those prototypes may now have a new porpose), inface some parts of creates have been used for something else or had a seconadry purpose with had a unexpected adavatage. Also as time goes on the design well get more effiance and new designs will be made but it all would have desended from that first 'design'. Your thinking that everything is not connected, were everything is and your ignoring the predecessors that came before and that each compent may have had a different job before coming together in that mouse trap.
Anyway way getting off topic so this will have to wait for a differant thread
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
April 5, 2013 at 10:30 pm (This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 10:45 pm by Mystic.)
(April 5, 2013 at 10:24 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote:
(April 5, 2013 at 10:09 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: That's the thing. Gradual steps suggest small changes. Small changes happen when it works best at each small stage. Each small stage has to be leading towards a whole system change. ie. little things that detect light towards a complicated system.
Let's talk about the mouse trap analogy because it's more simple. You have various parts right. But if they don't work together, then we have problem. It's useless.
You can talk about there being wooden planks on the ground in nature (analogy) but it doesn't mean the step of adding some useless parts that will lead eventually to a system of parts that is useful is possible. However, if it's guided by a designer, it can very well happen, because there is purpose.
Ah this is were I can help you out, yes on its own a mouse trap needs it parts to work but all of the components for it could have been used for many other things, like the wooden board could have been a door stop or the spring used to make a childs toy or the metal bar used for a mini football post, but instead they were used for a mousetrap as it was a design that was simple and effective, there were probably a few prototypes before the most efficient design was made (although those prototypes may now have a new porpose), inface some parts of creates have been used for something else or had a seconadry purpose with had a unexpected adavatage. Also as time goes on the design well get more effiance and new designs will be made but it all would have desended from that first 'design'. Your thinking that everything is not connected, were everything is and your ignoring the predecessors that came before and that each compent may have had a different job before coming together in that mouse trap.
But that's not how it appears in nature. It appears more analogous to the mouse trap example. That each part has a purpose, and not a bunch of unconnected purposes.
I know what your saying, and Michael Behe addresses this. The problem is the direction. You need direction. You can't have something be useful at one thing, and another thing being useful at another thing, and somehow they are heading towards being connected to a system, they will work better at what they are good at and develop towards that, and not be heading towards a system, and this many many many things working together...not just a few. There is no mechanism by naturalism model leading towards that. How does natural selection make it head towards a system, as opposed to keep improving what each part is good at (when they weren't a system)?
At the very least, science still gives us the appearance of design.
What I mean by system, is ofcourse, a very complex machine, with various parts working to do one thing. If they were meant to do other things, why are they heading towards working together as a very complicated machine and function. Natural selection and mutations doesn't account for that. Only purposeful design guided mechanism can account for that. At least that is the way it seems to me.
Skipping that explanation, and show various steps doesn't solve the issue.
(April 5, 2013 at 10:24 pm)Gooders1002 Wrote: Ah this is were I can help you out, yes on its own a mouse trap needs it parts to work but all of the components for it could have been used for many other things, like the wooden board could have been a door stop or the spring used to make a childs toy or the metal bar used for a mini football post, but instead they were used for a mousetrap as it was a design that was simple and effective, there were probably a few prototypes before the most efficient design was made (although those prototypes may now have a new porpose), inface some parts of creates have been used for something else or had a seconadry purpose with had a unexpected adavatage. Also as time goes on the design well get more effiance and new designs will be made but it all would have desended from that first 'design'. Your thinking that everything is not connected, were everything is and your ignoring the predecessors that came before and that each compent may have had a different job before coming together in that mouse trap.
But that's not how it appears in nature. It appears more analogous to the mouse trap example. That each part has a purpose, and not a bunch of unconnected purposes.
I know what your saying, and Michael Behe addresses this. The problem is the direction. You need direction. You can't have something be useful at one thing, and another thing being useful at another thing, and somehow they are heading towards being connected to a system, they will work better at what they are good at and develop towards that, and not be heading towards a system, and this many many many things working together...not just a few. There is no mechanism by naturalism model leading towards that. How does natural selection make it head towards a system, as opposed to keep improving what each part is good at (when they weren't a system)?
At the very least, science still gives us the appearance of design.
Yes it looks like it's designed but its not, its like winning the lottery the chance of correctly choosing the next 5 people who will win the jackpot, this chance of that happened are huge but 5 will win and if those 5 don't then others will take their place, just like evolution. A organism will develop a mutation of there body, that chance of them developing one particular mutation are beyond huge but something will develop and that's the beautiful part, something will, whether it will help or hinder will be dependant on the environment.so it looks designed because it the most effecant design for that envioment and anything that will hinder will be lost and neutrel mutations will be keep and end up as junk DNA when the part is not needed. That Evotution in a nutshell.
Anyway back to the main topic.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
April 5, 2013 at 10:53 pm (This post was last modified: April 5, 2013 at 10:58 pm by Mystic.)
Ok back to the main topic.
I think I want to debate this topic in the official debate thread. I nominate Apophenia, because she likes to kick my butt in arguments and knows her shit well. But hopefully she won't spray shoot me with a bunch of facts instead of focusing on the logic and reasoning.
Also I say I could be wrong. I am uncertain.
