The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

So we are agreed that the development of the eye is dependent upon mutations of the DNA. When we look at the complexities of such mutations and the chances that they would end up producing thousands of precise proteins, the numbers are just too outlandish to be taken seriously. Bear in mind that the body makes over 100,000 different proteins, each of which requires complex code to produce it. Even if the mutations required to create these DNA sequences are slow and gradual, it doesn't change the odds against ending up with a usable protein.

Except that the unusable ones aren't generally viable life forms, are they? You are looking at only the successes, over countless attempts made over millions of years, ignoring the mountains of failures both seen and unseen, and then pretending that there are only successes. There aren't: when you don't artificially limit the odds for no reason, what you'll find is that there are more than enough failed attempts to justify what successes there are, even if I buy into your idea here, which I don't. You're wrong, even if what you're describing is correct.

Yes I understand this, but you are missing the point. Lets say it takes hundreds of specialized proteins to construct the anterior chamber of the eye. What good is this if you don't have the fluid to fill it? Your model says "it doesn't matter, the chamber can sit there for a few million years until the DNA mutates enough to produce the 676 proteins required to make the aqueous humor." And so it goes on and on until all of the necessary parts of the eye have finally formed. Again, I would say that the odds of this happening are impossibly low.

No, that's not my model, not in its entirety. My model also allows for each individual component to perform its own, isolated function for the organism prior to becoming the eye, or for sequential, less complex eyes to build up to the current form. You're still acting as though there's only one way for an eye to be, the current way, and that each individual component would have to evolve in like parts on a model kit, but that's not the case. That's not even close to what evolution describes, even within Darwin's time.

What's particularly strange is that you'll ask this question at all, given that the link I gave, which you claimed to have read, contains the answer within the first screen: light sensitive cells evolve a depression, which confers limited directional light-sensing to the organism. If that depression cups around and is filled with simple water, then you've got a pinhole camera, but more importantly, you've got the anterior chamber of the eye and a rudimentary fluid to fill it, and from there it's a simple mutation to allow for the generation of a specialized fluid, rather than just water.

There's literally a diagram explaining that in the link you've "read," but you're still asking that question?

I missed this post but I have gone back and read it now. I don't think you debunked it. If Hemoglobin was derived from an earlier, simpler compound, you would still have to change the DNA coding to change the amino acid sequences and this would require mutations of the DNA code.  

... We already know that DNA mutates. What's the issue here?

Hopefully neither. Natural selection still relies on changes to the genetic code via mutations;

"Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype.[1] It is a key mechanism of evolution, the change in heritable traits of a population over time.[2] The term "natural selection" was popularised by Charles Darwin who compared it with artificial selection, now usually referred to as selective breeding.

Variation exists within all populations of organisms. This occurs partly because random mutations arise in the genome of an individual organism, and these mutations can be passed to offspring. Throughout the individuals’ lives, their genomes interact with their environments to cause variations in traits. (The environment of a genome includes the molecular biology in the cell, other cells, other individuals, populations, species, as well as the abiotic environment.) Individuals with certain variants of the trait may survive and reproduce more than individuals with other, less successful, variants. Therefore, the population evolves." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection  Emphasis mine.

Which still suggests nothing like what you're claiming here. Yes, the mutations are random, but they're strained through the process of natural selection: every mutation is going to give some result, there's no means by which nothing will happen. Either the result is fatal, in which case you won't be seeing that organism around, or it isn't, in which case you will. The odds are irrelevant because you're not looking at a fully random process, you're looking at a randomized input through a filter, which spits out only successful (for a given value of success) results. You are then looking at those successful results and pondering why there's only successful results, while ignoring the filter that all of them went through before you even get to look at them.

I've said this before, but I guess it bears repeating: when you're looking at events that have already happened, the odds are irrelevant. If an improbable event happens to be the outcome of a thing- and improbable events do happen, especially considering the vast pool of attempts being made in the case of evolution- then that is still the outcome, regardless of the probability you assign to it. If I flip a coin and want to know what side it landed on, the way to do that is to examine the evidence of the coin toss. I don't ignore the coin and dismiss the possibility that it landed on its edge simply because that's a less probable outcome than heads or tails.

That's what you're doing here, only in this case, it's actually worse: you're not just ignoring the coin, you're also ignoring a veritable mountain of cross-confirmatory evidence, discovered over more than a century, that is testable, provides predictions that routinely bear out as true, and happens live. You're seeing the coin on its edge, having that coin tested in numerous ways, for years, and every test shows that yes, the coin is on its edge... and then you're asserting that it landed on heads, because the edge is improbable.

Incidentally, did you ever even think about the probability of there being an intelligent designer? Like, how did you derive the probability of that? You would have had to have done so, to say that the probability of life evolving is lower than it, so... How does that go? Because as far as I can see, there's no way you could derive that... and did the intelligent designer evolve? Did it arise naturally, or did it have a creator? Or is it neither, Mister Christian? Is it just your god, eternal and always extant?

... Did you consider the probability of a being like that existing? Or is it only evolution that gets to be interrogated like this?

Sure. The evidence of design.

... Which is...? It hasn't escaped anyone's notice that you haven't presented any yet, dude. When you were asked, all you did was attempt to show that evolution is improbable again, which... is not evidence for design. Evidence against a second position is not evidence for the first position. Surely you know that by now.

I didn't say that evidence of design was because evolution was unlikely, I said that it was mathematically impossible. So if we see incredibly complex, integrated systems that could not have evolved, there is only one other alternative - there is design, and if there is design then there must be a designer.

How the hell did you determine that there were only two options?

... Oh my. I seem to have hit upon the central fallacy that the rest of your threadbare position hangs on. And also? When you presented your math, evolution still had a positive probability there. Things with positive probabilities are not impossible, mathematically or otherwise; you're vastly overstating your case.

[robvalue]

Analogies aren't evidence. They aren't even an argument.

They are a way of trying to better explain the actual argument.

The only time analogies count for anything is when they are perfect ones within an abstract system, such as mathematics. If an analogy is all you have, you have nothing.

Our guy here is still assuming a false dichotomy, that either current scientific theory explains everything, or else life is designed by default.

That is not how science works, and I don't know if we'll ever get him to understand this. It's like proving you have the fastest car by constantly pointing out how slow you think my car is. There you go, an analogy, further illustrating the actual argument.

[pocaracas]

My boy... is anything random?

And did I not say "bound by chemistry"?

If nothing is random then entropy doesn't exist.

Define "random".
Then define "entropy".

Then define "ignorance".



After sleeping on it, maybe you'll be able to see how all of these intertwine.... I won't hold my breath, though....

[Pat Mustard]

Spinning evolution out of straw is the ONLY way design proponents can argue against it.  

Remember to give them their proper title, chosen by themselves, "cdesign proponentsists".

[AJW333]

If neanderthals and regular humans interbred, then wouldn't that make them the same species?

No, they're different species but closely related ones. Lions and tigers can interbreed, but that doesn't make them the same species.

I realize that the dictionary isn't necessarily the best source for scientific definitions but there seems to be consensus that this is the correct definition,

"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

If this is the case, then lions and tigers would be the same species.

[IATIA]

Genesis 3 (King James Version)

9  And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10  And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

So god did know where Adam and was forced to call "Olly Olly Oxen Free" and had to query whether Adam had eaten of the forbidden tree.

Also there is;

Genesis 4 (King James Version)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

(my bold)

Who is "US" ?

[IATIA]

Genesis 3 (King James Version)

9  And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10  And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?

So god did know where Adam and was forced to call "Olly Olly Oxen Free" and had to query whether Adam had eaten of the forbidden tree.

Also there is;

Genesis 4 (King James Version)

22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

(my bold)

Who is "US" ?

[Esquilax]

I realize that the dictionary isn't necessarily the best source for scientific definitions but there seems to be consensus that this is the correct definition,

"Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species."

If this is the case, then lions and tigers would be the same species.

You're stressing the wrong words: "composed of related individuals that resemble one another," is also a part of that sentence. Physiology also plays a role in determining species delineations, not just interbreeding, which is why we have another term, hybridization, which describes interbreeding between distinct species. Tigers and Lions, while closely related on a meta-level, are still distinct species due to divergences in their physical appearance and genetics, while still being close enough together taxonomically to interbreed and create hybrid offspring.

[AJW333]

I don't know if you saw my wristwatch analogy but if you found a watch with no markings, you would still conclude that it was designed by someone, even if you couldn't identify that person by looking at the watch. You would still be satisfied that they existed. Tracking down the designer may indeed be difficult but one thing is for certain - they exist. And another thing is possible - if you found him, you may not like him.

There are plenty of arguments against your watchmaker one.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-sc...30878.html

From the first article;

"The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which is uncomplicated and random."

 Nature cannot be simply defined as uncomplicated and random since it has both elements of randomness, eg a rock strewn desert, and elements of complexity eg plants, animals etc.


I know that you hate it when I claim that the DNA (according to evolution) is the product of random mutations, but isn't that what Prof Dawkins is saying here;

"Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

---

I don't know if you saw my wristwatch analogy but if you found a watch with no markings, you would still conclude that it was designed by someone, even if you couldn't identify that person by looking at the watch. You would still be satisfied that they existed. Tracking down the designer may indeed be difficult but one thing is for certain - they exist. And another thing is possible - if you found him, you may not like him.

In the case of a wristwatch yes obviously, if I ever found him I would advise him to be a bit more forthcoming with evidence where the watch came from.

Isn't that his prerogative as the designer?

[Expired]

There are plenty of arguments against your watchmaker one.

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/watchmak.htm
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-sc...30878.html

From the first article;

"The argument first assumes that a watch is different from nature, which is uncomplicated and random."

 Nature cannot be simply defined as uncomplicated and random since it has both elements of randomness, eg a rock strewn desert, and elements of complexity eg plants, animals etc.


I know that you hate it when I claim that the DNA (according to evolution) is the product of random mutations, but isn't that what Prof Dawkins is saying here;

"Natural selection, the blind unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind's eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker."

---

In the case of a wristwatch yes obviously, if I ever found him I would advise him to be a bit more forthcoming with evidence where the watch came from.

Isn't that his prerogative as the designer?

Not if he wants people to kiss his arse.