|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does Complexity demonstrate Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
All 3 of those "proofs" you've given clearly demonstrate the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance:
Forbidden Forget the possibility of DNA possibly forming by itself via abiogenesis processes for a minute. In fact, I'm willing to be a full skeptic like yourself for a second and say it couldn't have happened. Now, being in this position, what would make me inclined to think that an Intelligent Creator helped contribute to the process? And what would differentiate that possibility from, say, a meteor with RNA inside it dropping off in our primordial soup? Or more to the point, what would differentiate a group of martians from creating us from scratch, vs. a Divine Creator starting things up? I personally need to have some positive, verifiable, observed evidence that a Divine Creator was responsible for it all in order for me to fully submit myself to the possibility. I need to be able to see some type of evidence, without attempting to shoot down any other possible ideas of how things started (hence, avoiding the false dilemna fallacy), in order for me to believe a Divine Creator was responsible. Now, aside of trying to shoot down other possibilities like random chance occurrences, martian intervention, and the like, can you present to me any positive, observable, and verifiable evidence that there was a Divine Creator intervening somehow from the getgo?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrHambre Member (Idle past 1422 days) Posts: 1495 From: Framingham, MA, USA Joined: |
MisterOpus1,
You're being way too hard on our pal yxifix here. What is it you don't find cogent about this creationist-logic one-two punch?yxifix writes: a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us). regards,Esteban Hambre
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5225 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Mr Hambre,
Convincing, isn't he? This is why I always go straight for the logical flaw, & formally name it. If I'd made such an error, you'd offer a counter example where the reasoning was identical, but the conclusion different, & I would understand that my "proof" logic, couldn't be. But such intellectual consistencies are beyond these poor folk. He currently is refusing to clarify his position because I am perpetrating false facts (without naming them, or supporting his position), the mere allegation is good enough, appatarently !!! Not that isn't a reason to clarify his position, of course. Sweet Jesus. If there was a god, surely it wouldn't be just the fundamentalists he'd deny brains? It's anti-favouritism, surely? Mark There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Oh.. the experiment is proof.. but it isn't proof of what you are thinking of. It is proof that complex organisms don't spontaniously come togather right away... That , of course, would falisfy evoultion
The point you seem to miss is that according to the theory of evolution, changes in the organisms come slowly, and with random mutation with the filter of natural selection allows for the increase in complexity. So, you see, evolution is not 'random', but it does not require a 'design' either, since the natural process of choose those organisms that are better suited to survive to reproduce can allow organismsform complexity over time. Pointing to something and saying it is evidence is one thing. However, you have to back up what that 'evidence' means. The evidence you are pointing to disproves your thesis, and is not evidence for it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Let's try something.
Imagine a number between 0 and 1000. An evolutionist could evolve the number in no more than 31 steps? Would you like to put it to a test? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Ooook writes: Let's also have a look at what is required for protein synthesis to evolve from this kind of situation:
I see no reson why the genetic code could not have evolved from the RNA-only world by random mutation. Can you point to the part which would absolutely require inteligence to get involved? Lets learn something about required stuff for RNA, hm?
quote: You see? RNA can't be created without already existing DNA and DNA can't be created without already existing RNA. That was simple. You must agree.
A computer cannot randomly create information without the intervention of inteligence, and therefore the DNA code couldn't have arisen by chance This is what I mean by debating by analogy. Unless you can demonstrate that a computer is exactly analogous to the kind of situation I am describing then your position is meaningless. Yes, sure, it is. Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code.1. Computer can be created by a man but without program can do absolutely nothing. The same as a cell can do absolutely nothing without DNA code. 2. There can't be done any 'good' mutations needed for macro-evolution (eg code for any color) until a code is written for them in RNA (only intelligence can do that). So is it now clear? Agree? As Crash has pointed out, science does not provide absolute proofs, just tentative answers. However, I suppose if you could truthfully say something like this:
"We know the exact conditions in which life is meant to have started, recreated them a great many times and we still haven't come close!" then you would go some way to challenging my position. As none of the statement is true, then your position is not supported. Read an answer above, then please reply.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Loudmouth writes: quote: No, the REPLICATION of DNA is part of evolution. How the first DNA came about is not a part of evolution. Once you have an imperfect replicating system and differential reproductive success, then you have evolution. It doesn't matter man, it's the same all the way 'up'.... well, ok, if you like, in this case you have to explain how a code for legs (eg) 'evolved' in RNA during evolution. If you say there was already complete human cell at the beginning that would be against theory of evolution, sorry as for example no plants or chicken could be created. I am looking forward to seeing your answer.
quote: A bacteria acquires an enzyme that is able to digest nylong through the process of random mutation: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm an entire population of flavobacterium were then made up of this one mutant since it is able to take advantage of an environment filled with nylon derivatives at a nylong plant. Therefore, we see one beneficial mutation that is an accident that then becomes part of an entire population through the effects of selection. Hence, evolution is able to increase information (new enzyme) in a population through accidents (random mutation). The environment was able to give the mutation meaning in the absence of an intelligent designer. Demagogy. I could answer you quite easily but I'm talking about sponteaneous generation, not about 'evolution' of bacteria. Is it a proof against spontaneous generation or not? PS: What's the reason you don't what to prove a creation of the initial information anymore (you tried hard before)? Let me guess what....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
MisterOpis1 writes: All 3 of those "proofs" you've given clearly demonstrate the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance Welcome on board:
message 257message 259 message 265 mark24, crashfrog, wounded king, MisterOpis1.... (hopefully I have mentioned anybody, if not, excuse me) who's next?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
mark24 writes: Mr Hambre, Convincing, isn't he? This is why I always go straight for the logical flaw, & formally name it. If I'd made such an error, you'd offer a counter example where the reasoning was identical, but the conclusion different, & I would understand that my "proof" logic, couldn't be. But such intellectual consistencies are beyond these poor folk. Funny man.... time to show your example:PS: Please answer what's wrong with these facts (so please show me one example which shows it is not a fact, thank you): a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing. b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us). Don't forget... example.... if you don't know about any... say it. That will be enough. as well as: Have a look at the experiment -> Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code.1. Computer can be created by a man but without program can do absolutely nothing. The same as a cell can do absolutely nothing without DNA code. or if you are saying you don't care how a cell was created->2. There can't be done any 'good' mutations needed for macro-evolution until a code is written for them in RNA (only intelligence can do that). So is it now clear? Agree? If you say there was already complete human cell at the beginning that would be against theory of evolution, sorry as for example no plants could be created. I am awaiting clear answers from you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
ramoss writes: Oh.. the experiment is proof.. but it isn't proof of what you are thinking of. It is proof that complex organisms don't spontaniously come togather right away... That , of course, would falisfy evoultion The point you seem to miss is that according to the theory of evolution, changes in the organisms come slowly, and with random mutation with the filter of natural selection allows for the increase in complexity. OK, now to second example. Have a look at the experiment -> Computer = a cell. Program = DNA code.1. Computer can be created by a man but without program can do absolutely nothing. The same as a cell can do absolutely nothing without DNA code. or if you are saying you don't care how a cell was created->2. There can't be done any 'good' mutations needed for macro-evolution until a code is written for them in RNA (only intelligence can do that). So is it now clear? Agree? If you say there was already complete human cell at the beginning that would be against theory of evolution, sorry as for example no plants could be created. OR you are saying if we give a computer time (eg 500 billions years), it could do some operations without a program? I am looking forward to seeing your answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
jar writes: Let's try something.Imagine a number between 0 and 1000. An evolutionist could evolve the number in no more than 31 steps? Would you like to put it to a test? VERY VERY NICE EXAMPLE. you are talking about micro-evolution mutations (numbers 0-1000 already exist in RNA). So lets apply it to macroevolution: Show me how a number 2000 can be imagined between 0-1000 and then evolved. Thank you. Don't forget to answer. Really nice example, thanks for your help.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Again, you totally misunderstand.
Anything, any feature, any attribute can be evolved through random chance and the filter of natural selection. It happens all the time. There is no difference whatsoever between macro and micro evolution, and the proof is all around you. Different things exist. The example I used shows that it is not only possible, but it is very easy to see how anything out there evolved from the simplest original living thing. Buy the way, to evolve 2000 would only involve one more step at the most, or 32 steps max. If you wanted to evolve a number a full order of magnitude greater, say 20,000, it might take as long as 42 steps. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
quote: yxifix, I'm not really interested in what others had to say about this. I am interested in what you are arguing, and the current logical fallacy you are running into here. I told you that I'm willing to negate the possibility of random chance creating the first proteins of life. By doing so I am willing to be "on your side" for a moment, so to speak. I am willing to submit that we just don't have enough information about the origins of life to feel comfortable with the idea of random processes creating the first proteins. Okay? Now, in order for me to feel comfortable with what you are arguing, an Intelligent Designer starting the process, I would very much appreciate some positive, verifiable, and observable evidence that there was, indeed, an Intelligent Designer responsible for it all. You cannot explain to me the reason is because it's just too unlikely for a random event to happen, because I'm willing to forego the argument from ignorance fallacy this is creating and agree with you here for the moment. You cannot therefore conclude that since it a random event is too unlikely the only viable solution is therefore an Intelligent Designer, because this creates the argument from false dilemna fallacy. There are other possibilities of the event occurring, ranging anywhere from a meteor carrying the life's proteins (and perhaps even life's beginning cells), to a martian from another planet dropping off a couple of beginning cells and RNA proteins. So in order for me to be convinced that an Intelligent Designer of some sort, began life's process, I need to have some positive, verifiable, and observable evidence that this ID was responsible. Do you have this positive evidence that clearly demonstrates this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6052 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
You see? RNA can't be created without already existing DNA and DNA can't be created without already existing RNA. That was simple. You must agree. Yxifix - what you describe is true for a fully formed eukaryotic cell, but is not true in general. RNA and DNA can be created by simple chemical reactions requiring essentially none of the details you describe. I routinely create enormous amounts of DNA and RNA in the lab using such a chemical reaction, which includes NO cells, and only a single enzyme. As has been explained already by Ooooook!, some RNAs (as you describe also) can act as enzymes, and self-replicating RNAs have been created that require no other interacting molecules. Here's full text of a peer-reviewed journal article that provides some background on how RNA can form by chemical reactions, and how UV light can act as a selective force to drive RNA evolution. It may not be the best reference but the full text was available....
Computer can be created by a man but without program can do absolutely nothing. But what if an electromagnetic disturbance scrambled the hard drive, accidentally creating binary code for a small computer virus, which subsequently replicates, filling the hard drive with copies of itself, and thus information? Then the computer would be "doing something."
The same as a cell can do absolutely nothing without DNA code. Incorrect. Red blood cells don't have DNA code, but they transport oxygen throughout your body.
edited to fix link... This message has been edited by pink sasquatch, 08-18-2004 01:53 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
pink sasquatch writes:
quote: Well crap, that kinda does a little number to my temporary belief with yxifix that RNA and DNA cannot arise randomly and/or spontaneously. Nevertheless, just for argument sake I'm still willing to stick with yxifix's argument that it's just simply impossible for life to come from a few proteins and RNA strands to where we are today. But what I need now from yxifix is positive, verifiable, observable, and falsifiable evidence of his alternative theory of an Intelligent Designer starting it all. Hopefully his answer will be coming soon, because I really think there has to be some evidence out there of some sort that an Intelligent Designer started the whole process of life from non-life.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024