TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Descend with modification is too vague
Did you miss the part where it said "...and selection"?
Was it on purpose?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Descend with modification is too vague
a quick argument
1 given that we evolved from simpler organisms
And
2 given that the mechanism of random mutation + NS doesn’t aim at complexity
My pet peave is the over dependence of biology on black box science; statistical. This dependency is not fully rational but still has an element of hocus pocus, with hocus pocus the very thing that Evolution accuses religion. Neither are 100% rational; both need faith. For example, Evolution begins with the first replicators even though their origins lacks any direct evidence. That is hocus pocus; poof! That is a foundation premise but it is not based on solid fossil evidence. It is similar to the premise of life on other planets due to logic and lottery, but still no proof.One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses.
Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic medicine, dealing with resistance to antibiotics, development of vaccines, discovery of drugs and treatments for cancer, infectious diseases, etc. It has even been useful in agriculture for dealing with resistance to insecticides and herbicides.
What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?
I would use these modern medicines. But only after extensive testing, since I would not trust the theory of any company, for a new drug, to be rational enough to go directly to market. They will first need to test in a new and bigger government black box, since their theory came from their own black box, and will not be rational enough for others; "all hail the bigger black box."What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?
it is still a fact that you made a claim and that you are not willing to support it............that is sad , shame on youYou can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dtrink.
As for lurkers they recognize your pathetic game too, go back to your echo chamber and tell them how you slew the eviloushunists.
it is still a fact that you made a claim and that you are not willing to support it............that is sad , shame on youYou can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dtrink.
As for lurkers they recognize your pathetic game too, go back to your echo chamber and tell them how you slew the eviloushunists.
then you shoulndt have any problem is showing why the argument fails.Random mutation + selection, doesn't aim at anything.
There is no "aiming" of any sort.
Your objection is a complete non-argument.
But there is nothing wrong with pointing out the things that we know and the things that we don’t know.
1 we know that birds evovled from ancient dinosaurs
2 we don’t know how it happened. (we don’t know the mechanisms)
Any disagreement?
there is something very wrogn with you.............. if you made a claim you have to support it, why is it so hard to understand?You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him dtrink.
As for lurkers they recognize your pathetic game too, go back to your echo chamber and tell them how you slew the eviloushunists.
I am under no obligation to provide in depth answers to ill formed and ignorant questions from a person who is not engaging in polite conversation and desires only to try to show up posters.it is still a fact that you made a claim and that you are not willing to support it............that is sad , shame on you
No problem, your argument fails due to a false assumption in the premises due to your lack of understanding.then you shoulndt have any problem is showing why the argument fails.
2 simple premises
1 Complexity on average doenst increase as a resoult of random mutation and natural selection2 complexity on average tends to increasewhich of the premises do you say is wrong?
The concept of specified complexity is widely regarded as mathematically unsound and has not been the basis for further independent work in information theory, in the theory of complex systems, or in biology.[2][3][4] A study by Wesley Elsberry and Jeffrey Shallit states: "Dembski's work is riddled with inconsistencies, equivocation, flawed use of mathematics, poor scholarship, and misrepresentation of others' results."[5] Another objection concerns Dembski's calculation of probabilities. According to Martin Nowak, a Harvard professor of mathematics and evolutionary biology, "We cannot calculate the probability that an eye came about. We don't have the information to make the calculation."[6]
I am under no obligation to provide in depth answers to ill formed and ignorant questions from a person who is not engaging in polite conversation and desires only to try to show up posters.
it didnt , I was not even aware of the article from AIG.When it became obvious that you understanding of the subject was based on a creationist website that had mislead you as to the significance of their source material and that you did not have enough background to see their and your error, I ceased wasting my time and linked you to some basic educational sites.
In short, until you actually learn enough about evolution, you are incapable of recognizing the lies propagated by Answers in Genesis.
Shame is on AIG or misleading people like you into thinking that they are presenting a question about evolution.
no, no no sir, be specific, quote my exact words and explain what false assumtions are being made...... quit your dishonest and ambigous accusations.No problem, your argument fails due to a false assumption in the premises
who is talking abut specified complexity?due to your lack of understanding.
Random Walks are Random. Selection works on the result. There is no measure of specified complexity.
regardless if we can agree on a defintion of complexity or not, we both agree that life is on average more complex today than in the precambrian.,,,,,,,, unless you expicitly disagree with this statement I will assume that you agree.Could you be the first to measure complexity?
You got it from someplace because you were certainly not being original in your parroting their lies. You also obviously never read the original article which does not say what you think it does.in my opinion, you have the intelectual obligation to support your asertions made in a public forum.... but feel free to have a different opinion.
it didnt , I was not even aware of the article from AIG.
, You are parroting yet another creationist talking point, though this one is from the Discotute who made up this bad argument about complexity. You don't understand it either, agreement is not even a question, you really don't know enough to even discuss the subject let alone ask someone if they agree with your ideas, It is like talking nuclear physics with a five year old.no, no no sir, be specific, quote my exact words and explain what false assumtions are being made...... quit your dishonest and ambigous accusations.
who is talking abut specified complexity?
all I am saying is that NS doesnt necesairly selects complexity over simplicity, and that there is not a trend that favors complexity over simplicity. Natural selection aims at survival and reproduction, not at complexity..................... do I really have to support this simple and uncontrovertial claim?
If you dont explicitly and unabigously claim the opposite I will assume that you agree with the satement.
regardless if we can agree on a defintion of complexity or not, we both agree that life is on average more complex today than in the precambrian.,,,,,,,, unless you expicitly disagree with this statement I will assume that you agree.
You got it from someplace because you were certainly not being original in your parroting their lies. You also obviously never read the original article which does not say what you think it does.
You are not paying attention, I dont reject the theory of evolution. I am simply skpetical on the claim that ´random mutation + NS can account for all the diversity and complexity of life….. (I suggest that there are other mechanisms) which is consistent with what scientists say.Your behavior like your avatars is arrogant and narcissistic, and ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.
Your behavior is also typical of creationist Christians who have discovered a "new" argument and think they are going to do mighty battle with the evil atheists.
The funny part is, that for many of your ilk, when you do start to learn about evolution, the lies you have been told about it often cause a crisis and create another atheist. Christians who accept evolution don't have this problem and are often the ones pointing out your mistakes.
Ok just for the record, you accused me for making false assumptions, but you were unable to even quote those alleged falsehoods., You are parroting yet another creationist talking point, though this one is from the Discotute who made up this bad argument about complexity. You don't understand it either, agreement is not even a question, you really don't know enough to even discuss the subject let alone ask someone if they agree with your ideas, It is like talking nuclear physics with a five year old.
Funny thing, thems the reasons I ignoreYou got it from someplace because you were certainly not being original in your parroting their lies. You also obviously never read the original article which does not say what you think it does.
Your behavior like your avatars is arrogant and narcissistic, and ignorant of the Theory of Evolution.
Your behavior is also typical of creationist Christians who have discovered a "new" argument and think they are going to do mighty battle with the evil atheists.
The funny part is, that for many of your ilk, when you do start to learn about evolution, the lies you have been told about it often cause a crisis and create another atheist. Christians who accept evolution don't have this problem and are often the ones pointing out your mistakes.
Corrections are not attacks. And the articles that you provided are about twelve years old. Genetic sequencing has improved by quite a bit over those twelve years, but no researchers seem to accept your false interpretations.it was long ago, like 5 or 10 years ago..... I typed something like "same genes evolved independently" in google and that article emerged
BTW, I haven't read the AIG article, but I am curious can you quote a supposed lie in that article?......... or should I add this to the list of unsupported accusations made by you?
You are not paying attention, I dont reject the theory of evolution. I am simply skpetical on the claim that ´random mutation + NS can account for all the diversity and complexity of life….. (I suggest that there are other mechanisms) which is consistent with what scientists say.
You are the one who claims with certainty that random mutation + NS can account for all the diversity of life, perhaps you are correct, but my issue is your arrogance and your alleged certainty together with your unwillingness to support your claims.
Ok and that is true because you say so.Corrections are not attacks. And the articles that you provided are about twelve years old. Genetic sequencing has improved by quite a bit over those twelve years, but no researchers seem to accept your false interpretations.
One of the purposes of science is to provide the steppingstones for finding solutions to problems, such as treatments for illnesses.
Scientific knowledge derived from the observations and discoveries pertaining to evolution has actually served practical and beneficial purposes, such as genomic medicine, dealing with resistance to antibiotics, development of vaccines, discovery of drugs and treatments for cancer, infectious diseases, etc. It has even been useful in agriculture for dealing with resistance to insecticides and herbicides.
What I would like to know, from those who reject biological evolution, is this: would you turn down a treatment for an illness that was only possible to develop using scientific knowledge from biological evolution? Why or why not?