Confronting Friends and Family

[thesummerqueen]

You are either a huge troll or have your head so far up your ass you can't even type "Google" properly.

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm not sure what you mean about DNA growing and improving on its own apart from the creature that uses it, but uh... You're actually rather wrong about things not being expected. Abiogenesis, for example. The concept that inorganic matter can become organic matter [basically non-living material becoming living material]. The most common crux of the "AHA, THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION IS FLAWED" argument the creationists typically dredge up, was proven to actually happen under controlled laboratory environment testing. Now with that piece of the puzzle on the board we now have to determine when/if Earth ever was in such a state, though it's not very far-fetched to say it would be.

As for scientists becoming very bull-headed about certain theories, that's hardly surprising at all; science has become a bit of a celebrated thing, and to be shown you are wrong can be very damaging to one's ego. Christians, I am sure, are used to that, given how even to this day they continue to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting evolution as fact; it must be very galling to the collective Christian ego to have to admit that the story of genesis makes absolutely no sense regardless if it's taken literally or metaphorically, even though they've claimed it to be literal fact since damn-near Day One.

Christians complaining about scientists being stubborn...heehee.

[Brakeman]

[Aractus]

[thesummerqueen]

I'm not understanding how humans not understand YET the mechanisms behind everything leads to whatever it is you're arguing for.

[Kirbmarc]

[Aractus]

DNA doesn't have "interests". And evolution isn't guided by "interests", it's guided by survival and reproduction.

Survival of what? The species?

If yes, then good you're on the right path, but it leads you to the problem that the interests of the species can conflict with the interests of the individual. Penguins are known for their ability to huddle together to keep warm, yet the individual penguins rotate their position and all, selflessly, spend exactly the same amount of time on the outside as each other. That's just one example of the system functioning against the direct wishes of its components. Thus you can't find all the answers you're looking for in the components only of the system; the functions run through the larger system but are not found in the individual components. It's the reductionist's nightmare.

Insects and birds also have similar structures in their wings. It's called "convergent evolution" and it's simply the result of adapting to similar ecological niches.

You've understated convergence. In fact convergence is a requirement of Evolution, if you couldn't observe convergence then you wouldn't be able to prove, at all, that complex structures can develop from simple rules in the world of biology. Convergence is in a sense predicted by the theory of Evolution, just as Einstein's theory of General Relativity "predicts" the existence of Black Holes.

No, I'm sorry, but you haven't. You have pointed out a few aspects of abiogenesis that need to be understood better, but you haven't reported anything problematic about the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Then explain to me specifically how Evolution works in such a manner that will be produce predictions that I can test. You can't. That's because you don't know how evolution works - you don't even know the exact relationship between "creature" and "dna". Just because you know that evolution takes place, doesn't mean you have a complete theory that explains it. You simply have the observation: evolution takes place; not the theory that produces it. It's like talking about how molecules relate to each other without understanding or even knowing about chemistry - you can only "know" so much.

Yes, there is. It's called natural selection. A complex structure, such as a heart, didn't magically pop up from nowhere. It derives from less complex structures, which derive from even less complex structures, and so on.

...

It is random chance genetic mutations that are progressively selected through natural selection.

Again you show the error in your view of the world. You see creatures as being "defined" by a function they share in common (dna). They also share the laws of quantum physics in common. Are they just a quantum uncertainty principle then? Of course not.

Let me explain this another way. If you were to blindfold a child from birth for the first three years of their life, they would never, ever, be able to see anything - they would be permanently blind, forever. The same with language - if you were never to communicate with a child for the first 5-6 years of their life, they would be unable to fully learn, understand and use any human language (Google "feral humans" for examples of these points). Our brains have to "learn" the functions, we're not given them from DNA or directly from our environments. Our brains are not pre-wired. Dyslexic people have a genuine problem with literacy because their brains didn't have the same learning capacity for that specific function as "most" people. The difference between what "might" and "mightn't" be is incredible, the exact same genetic material produces huge diversity, and diverse genetic material produces huge similarities, these two things are inescapable.

"Natural selection" is just a function, it is not the overarching law that governs how evolution behaves. If there truly is a "law" of evolution, as there are other laws of physics (laws of biology, laws of chemistry, etc), it isn't the "law of natural selection"; rather "natural selection" is a necessary by product of the "law of evolution". It is predicted, but not defined by, the law. Frankly I think I have more of a belief in evolution then you do, since I'm able to actually communicate what some of its functions are, yet you look to the functions as "laws" themselves that govern the system. One day someone will figure it out, just like we figured out that a fractal is a mathematical shape.

[Creed of Heresy]

One thing you will notice is I will occasionally make nods, references, or gestures to other instances that may only vaguely have anything to do with the topic at hand in an overarching sense. I am aware you're probably not a creationist nor have any inclination to it but it's something I felt like bringing up all the same. you'll get used to it. I just like saying more than I need to.

"Fact" is a funny word to use. Depends on how pure you want your fact to be. The fact of evolution itself on the overall whole IS fact...but not all the explanations of the HOW it is fact are all there or entirely accurate. It's fact...though we just don't know ENTIRELY why. Think of it like this; you exist. This is fact. You know it's fact, I'm...PRETTY sure it's fact [unless you're a figment of my imagination in which case...well I probably need to get my ass to a mental clinic on the double, then, don't I?]. But do you, yourself, know the EXACT process by which you were born? Do you know the rate at which each organ developed, at what time the sperm entered the egg, the rate of cellular growth you underwent? No, but you do have a general idea, right? That's SORT of how it is with evolution, though more advanced than that. It's fact that it happened and continues to happen but we've only had like two centuries of study in it and we have to basically look at a timetable going back to the beginning of the universe itself; the EXACT understanding of the mechanics are still being pieced together. Obviously we can't discount it just because we don't know it since we've come far enough to essentially conclude that, within a reasonable error of margin, it MUST work like this, that or the entire thing needs to be revised.

THAT is where the bias tends to come from. You go with what seems to make the most sense currently...because the likelihood is greater that that is how it works, because all existing explanations make sense. The other makes less sense for one of two reasons; it's just simply wrong, or there isn't as much information backing it up. If it's wrong and you're on the right path, well, no time wasted, and if you're wrong and the less-likely theory is right, well, you'll reach that point eventually, now won't you?

That's why some scientists seem to be refusing to acknowledge new evidence; if one piece of evidence contradicts a hundred pieces of evidence, but both sides make sense, you're gonna go with the quantity of evidence until evidence starts to stack up against it. A single piece or even several pieces aren't quite enough to throw a theory out or revise it entirely...but if the big pile starts falling apart because of the new pile, then there's something to it...which is why you'll notice scientists changing their tack after multiple pieces of evidence start building up in different paths of thought.

But scientists are human, too, so...ego is a part of it. XD

[Aractus]

"Fact" is a funny word to use. Depends on how pure you want your fact to be. The fact of evolution itself on the overall whole IS fact...but not all the explanations of the HOW it is fact are all there or entirely accurate. It's fact...though we just don't know ENTIRELY why.

No, that depends on your definition of "fact". Language is another example of something governed by "laws" that is found in complex systems; but is not a part of any of its individual components. No one has yet come up with the full theory on linguistics. It's something we can observe, it's something we can use, it's something found in the system, but it's not in the components. It develops and grows without any permanent physical link to its components. It is implicit that a system such as ours will necessarily give rise to it, we don't know why, we don't know the rules (or if you like laws) and we can't predict its behaviour, at present.

Let's turn this on its head for a moment. Our universe, we suppose is 13.8 Billion years old. It has been expanding since the time of its inception, it has also been cooling and the radiation dissipating. For the first time (and the only time) since the creation of the universe, it is now able to support life, our Earth was formed at exactly the correct time to allow life to exist on it. A few billion years in the future, the universe will be too cold to support life as we know it, yet it will continue to expand forever, never again supporting life. Everything we have is possible because we have a universe that is just the right age, that is just the right size and - most importantly - has just the right fundamental physics to enable life to exist. We don't have multiple universes, we only have one. Before I hear you argue the point on this - do you understand rudimentary General Relativity, and if so - do you actually understand rudimentary SCC that would replace it?

I find it a lot easier to think of the world in terms of QM - because at the heart of it, QM behaves much the same as classical physics, and this is easy to comprehend. GR is difficult to picture in your head - mainly because it turns our observations of the whole universe on its head. Sadly, both theories can't be true at the same time - they have an uneasy coexistence. QM works for its own systems - its own window of reference, but it can't be used beyond it. How it actually relates to the laws of chemistry is unknown - if it is indeed responsible for giving rise to the laws of chemistry in the first place. GR in the same way works for its systems - its own window of reference. Galaxies shouldn't be holding together, but scientists readily ignore this problem and claim dark matter holds them together (this isn't the only patch-up we do for this theory either).

No one can ignore the fact, whatever their view on the make up of the universe, that what we EXPECT to see, according to traditional reductionism, is simplicity. But the inner workings of the universe are fundamentally complex, this is a paradox. The universe can't be a computer - that is, it doesn't perform calculations to determine the next state of matter within it, so how do the systems that are built upon it function within it?

We're given a universe with the correct laws of chemistry to support life. Not just chemistry either, we have the correct laws of physics - whatever they are - that allow life to self-start as well; as impossible as it seems. We were given an Earth at exactly the right time for life to begin. And then add to that, we have a universe that has the correct laws of physics that give rise to the law of evolution that allows complexity to be downhill - the path of least resistance - a universe that not just allows, but demands (requires) diversity in life, and great complexity as well. In fact it also requires this level of complexity to rise from such a short period of evolution. Look at our history on Earth - as soon as conditions permitted, life started... as quickly as possible, life evolved into very complex organisms.

I view it as nonsensical to hold all these scientific views of the world, and then not see design. Not because it's impossible, but because there are so many fundamentally essential systems in our universe, that are held in the balance and work together to allow for life to exist and to enable it to have the kind of existence we observe. But, people will believe what they want to believe.

[KichigaiNeko]

You are funny aren't you?