Is this scientific proof?

TransmutingSoul said:

I am fully for the evolution of the species, and that it is an intelligent evolution.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

You may believe this, but I doubt if you have any evidence for it.

Hockeycowboy said:

Of course, nothing will ever be too complicated for a naturalistic explanation, eh?

You asked me once:



Because I’ve never read any literature explaining the definite mechanisms or pathways evolution took, or how it could create the first, say, bacterial flagellum, or any other novel organelles without a “probably,”“could have been” or “likely” thrown in . That’s philosophy, not science.


A gradual development of the BF *at one time* was explained by saying a simpler T3SS was a precursor, but then what happened? It was discovered that the BF came first, apparently.

So what were the pathways? What was the first protein selected, then what mechanisms utilized the other 29 proteins (or more?) to self-assemble and arrange themselves into a functional, purposeful unit?

Click to expand...

A rather clear error here is that you think that a definite path in evolution needs to be shown. We are unlikely to ever know the exact path that was followed in evolution because more than one path appears to be possible. Meanwhile there is no evidence that creationists can seem to supply for any of their beliefs.

Is this scientific proof?

A 'scientific proof' is established by publishing a paper in a reputable magazine; this paper is then peer reviewed, criticised, pulled apart. It may then be resubmitted and goes round the loop again.
Eventually it may be accepted.

Sticking a video on YouTube isn't science.

It Aint Necessarily So said:

I listened to about half. His argument is that if the DNA has instructions, it must be intelligently designed. It's basically the same incredulity and special pleading arguments we are accustomed to: The genome seems too complex to have arisen naturalistically, therefore it didn't, therefore God, who, despite being orders of magnitude more complex than the genetic material and itself undesigned and uncreated, is offered as a solution as to how so complex a thing as a genome could exist.

To me, proof is that which convinces, which changes a mind from undecided to decided, meaning that nothing is a proof if nobody is convinced by it, just as one can't simply declare a joke that nobody laughs at funny. Notice that proof as defined here is not dependent on the correctness of the assertion, but on its ability to persuade, even if it persuades one of a false conclusion through specious argumentation as the one in the video might. For me, this is proof of nothing more than that apologists are still trying to convince critical thinkers who will not believe by faith that there is a rational, evidence-based basis for believing.

Click to expand...

Well, that is in part psychology. So I have learned to check if something is unknown one way or the other or without proof one way or the other. That is what makes me a skeptic.

The critical question is that if something can be done with proof, then can everything be do with proof? Or is it in practice not possible to avoid beliefs in some sense?
Or it you like just as human mobility has limits, does human cognition have limits to what we can prove?

Jeremiah Ames said:

Debate the science, please.

I’m not interested in religion.

Click to expand...

"scientific proof"?

I'm 100% with @Subduction Zone. In my view, anyone who speaks of "scientific proof" stands exposed as an ignoramus. It's the sort of silly, unscientific, notion creationists like to ballock on about.Oh, wait................

(By the way, I don't waste my time watching Youtube videos, unless the person posting them summarises their content sufficiently first to whet my appetite. In this case, the subject alone tells me it's bilge.)

Subduction Zone said:

No, there are endless things that are complex that do not require intelligence. Your claim is not just unsubstantiated it has been refuted.

And if you watched the video another sign that the maker is either dishonest or woefully uninformed is his use of the word "luck". So what was it? Is he a liar or an ignorant creationist that needs to go back to school?

Click to expand...

Rhetorical?

Altfish said:

Is this scientific proof?

A 'scientific proof' is established by publishing a paper in a reputable magazine; this paper is then peer reviewed, criticised, pulled apart. It may then be resubmitted and goes round the loop again.
Eventually it may be accepted.

Sticking a video on YouTube isn't science.

Click to expand...

Even then it is not a proof. Science does not deal in proof.

Jeremiah Ames said:

Is this scientific proof?

Click to expand...

No. It's just another boring teleological argument.


No it wasn't 'just by chance' and the guy on the video should get an education in the subject before pretending to know what he's talking about. Using the word 'proof' in the context of science is also a dead give-away that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

exchemist said:

(By the way, I don't waste my time watching Youtube videos, unless the person posting them summarises their content sufficiently first to whet my appetite. In this case, the subject alone tells me it's bilge.)

Click to expand...

There's a transcript in the YouTube description (click 'show more'), at least I assume it's a full transcript, it matched the starting few sentences.

ratiocinator said:

There's a transcript in the YouTube description (click 'show more'), at least I assume it's a full transcript, it matched the starting few sentences.

Click to expand...

OK thanks. But I won't bother. It's already obvious it's just more "tornado-in-a-junkyard" ID crap.

Is it proof?

No


First it makes the typical ID mistake that science deals in proof. It doesn't, it deals in observation and repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

Second, another ID mistake in assuming complexity. DNA is not complex, it is made if just 4 common molicules that arrange in different orders. What IDists call complexity is in actual fact quantity.

Valjean said:

True. Simple algorithms or formulæ can generate infinite complexity.

Click to expand...

This comparison does not sit so well with me in context of what you wish to illustrate, Valjean. Though algorithms acquire a “life of their own” in that their overall effects cannot be controlled, algorithms are still programmed - designed, that is.

Were you not rather looking for examples of complexity without programming…?


Humbly
Hermit

exchemist said:

"scientific proof"?

I'm 100% with @Subduction Zone. In my view, anyone who speaks of "scientific proof" stands exposed as an ignoramus. It's the sort of silly, unscientific, notion creationists like to ballock on about.Oh, wait................

(By the way, I don't waste my time watching Youtube videos, unless the person posting them summarises their content sufficiently first to whet my appetite. In this case, the subject alone tells me it's bilge.)

Click to expand...

Does this mean that you did not watch the video interview I posted of Kent Hovind's ex-wife?

Seriously, I do not expect anyone that is not already disgusted with the man to watch it.

Subduction Zone said:

Does this mean that you did not watch the video interview I posted of Kent Hovind's ex-wife?

Seriously, I do not expect anyone that is not already disgusted with the man to watch it.

Click to expand...

How did you guess?

It Aint Necessarily So said:

God, who, despite being orders of magnitude more complex than the genetic material and itself undesigned and uncreated, is offered as a solution as to how so complex a thing as a genome could exist.

Click to expand...

Hockeycowboy said:

You think this is an adequate rebuttal? I mean, don’t you think that humans are the same? To you and others, Humankind is “itself undesigned and uncreated”, and “orders of magnitude more complex” than the simpler things it has made, like a bicycle. A mousetrap. A campfire ring. Etc. Yet we make them.... The argument is that complexity requires intelligence.

Click to expand...

The comment was to illustrate the logical fallacy of special pleading implied by the assumption that something very complex requires an intelligent designer to exist, then feeling no need to account for the existence of this even more complex deity invoked to account for a less complex entity.

The claim that complexity requires intelligence is easily refuted by pointing to complex entities that exist without a conscious builder, such as weather systems. The intelligent design people understood that, which is why they weren't looking for complexity per se in what are thought to be natural as evidence of an intelligent designer, but irreducible complexity and specified complexity.

Hockeycowboy said:

I’ve never read any literature explaining the definite mechanisms or pathways evolution took, or how it could create the first, say, bacterial flagellum, or any other novel organelles without a “probably,”“could have been” or “likely” thrown in .

Click to expand...

That's not relevant as to whether the theory of evolution is correct. The theory doesn't specify pathways. It just specifies the mechanism that propels them - natural selection applied to genetic variation between generations and within populations.

In the case of human evolution, we have fossil evidence of a variety of extinct apes, but it is difficult to decide which of these are ancestral to humankind, and which are branches from our lineage whose lines went extinct. If that's not clear, note that if there were a graveyard for your family representing ten generations of your family tree, you'd have a tough time deciding which were parents to parents ... of you, and which were their siblings and the descendants of those siblings, who are your relatives, but not your ancestors. Yet you wouldn't doubt that if those people are all genetically related, what the process was that generated that family tree whatever its structure and organization.

We have a similar problem with abiogenesis. The laws of chemistry are well understood, but the precise pathway that nature chose to get to the first population of replicators will be problematic or impossible to determine.

TransmutingSoul said:

There is no evidence that complexity requires intelligence?

Click to expand...

There's evidence that it frequently doesn't.

Perhaps you're thinking of specified complexity. From Wiki: "The Intelligent Design concept of specified complexity was developed by mathematician and philosopher William Dembski. Dembski claims that when something exhibits specified complexity (i.e., is both complex and specified, simultaneously) one can infer that it was produced by an intelligent cause (i.e., that it was designed), rather than being the result of natural processes (see naturalism). He provides the following examples: "A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex. A long sentence of random letters is complex without being specified. A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified."

Here, creationist Dembski is saying that complexity per se doesn't equate to intelligence, as a cup of scrabble letters poured out in a line generates a complex string of random characters, which is distinct from the complexity in a sentence. How complex is a mountain? How many parameters are necessary to specify its form and composition in a way that it can be recreated elsewhere with the same contour, the same assortment of minerals arranged the same way, the same arrangement of loose soil, stones, and boulders of the same size, composition, and relative location? That's complexity, but not specified complexity, and does not require intelligence to exist. It can assemble itself naturally.

Although it might not be the case, there is no known reason that nature didn't assemble life using the same rules that assembled that mountain - matter obeying physical law. There is no known non-physical limit to how complex a natural structure or relationship can become.

exchemist said:

How did you guess?

Click to expand...

To be fair for those familiar with the man it does round out our understanding of him. And it shows that nine years in prison was not enough time for him. Sadly the evidence is amassing that he is a psychopath that can get violent at times. Couple that with a following that treat him as the next coming and there could be a real problem one of these days. Currently he only body slams women and young children. But he could escalate beyond that.

Hockeycowboy said:

So what were the pathways? What was the first protein selected, then what mechanisms utilized the other 29 proteins (or more?) to self-assemble and arrange themselves into a functional, purposeful unit?

Click to expand...

Valjean said:

Pathways to what? What are we talking about here?

Click to expand...

Oh grief. The flagellum. The BF. You know that’s what I was talking about.
And I’m pretty sure, when I said the T3SS, you knew that too . Easy enough to Google.….

More obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution

Hockeycowboy said:

Oh grief. The flagellum. The BF. You know that’s what I was talking about.
And I’m pretty sure, when I said the T3SS, you knew that too . Easy enough to Google.….

More obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution

Click to expand...

He is using a strawman argument. Did you check to see if he wrote papers on this or if he merely objected to the evolution of the flagellum. He did not refute the argument of how the flagellum evolved.

Hockeycowboy said:

Oh grief. The flagellum. The BF. You know that’s what I was talking about.
And I’m pretty sure, when I said the T3SS, you knew that too . Easy enough to Google.….

More obsolete Dawkinsian evidence for evolution

Click to expand...

But the 'irreducible complexity of the flagellum' argument has been thoroughly debunked, for decades and by multiple sources -- if you'd care to Google....

Valjean said:

But the 'irreducible complexity of the flagellum' argument has been thoroughly debunked, for decades and by multiple sources -- if you'd care to Google....

Click to expand...

Really, the argument isn’t about ‘reducing’ it… it’s the inadequacies of evolutionary mechanisms to build it.

But you’ll never accept that as a fact.

Your faith in evolution is strong.