Interesting video about evolution and origins.

[ratiocinator]

There seems to be a goal in the evolution process to preserve what has evolved already, hence the checking and correction chemistry in the Genetic system.

That's not a goal, it's a result. You need reproduction to work properly in order for a population to survive.

 

[PureX]

That's not a goal, it's a result. You need reproduction to work properly in order for a population to survive.

If we are viewing evolution theory as a design process, which it clearly is, then the term "goal" applies, as the result of design is the goal of the design.

 

[Brian2]

Why should this be of interest to others?

It seems to have interested you. But I guess if you see design in nature and that the direction science is going to find answers is futile then that might explain it to a certain extent. You would have to read his book on why he became a believer really.

No, it has not. He (and perhaps you) seem to assume that, but he can't demonstrate purpose anywhere in the universe except in the minds of sufficiently evolved conscious animals. It's just a gut feeling or intuition for him.

He quotes Dennis Noble as saying in his book about the blind watchmaker, that there is observable goals in organisms and communities of organisms.
He does not go into detail about most things but seems to think that one goal would be the preservation of good mutations, this being done by correction mechanisms in the Genes to make sure copying is correct.

Another so what, and another fallacy if it's meant to argue against the validity of the scientific theory, it's an ignorantium fallacy.

I think the idea was that the evolution of life and the origins of life are completely different things. He was not speaking against evolution and he seems to think that evolution happened from Luca onwards.

Evolution doesn't need to explain them beyond that they arose through the application of natural selection to genetic variation in biological populations across generations. I smell another incredulity fallacy.

That is no doubt how science does explain those things, but Garte says there are no mechanisms to these things to have devoloped.
Basically it is presumption that evolution can explain everything and is not backed up by the science.

So what?

I think incredulity and awe is a good thing when looking at nature and what science has discovered about nature, if one is to break free from slavery to a belief that science can find all the answers if they are to be found at all.
I suppose you have seen some of the correction mechanism in DNA reproduction.

Now for another fallacy: "An argument from authority ... is a form of argument in which the mere fact that an influential figure holds a certain position is used as evidence that the position itself is correct."

Yes I see it being used regularly by atheists/skeptics and I know when I do it, it proves nothing.

Interestingly, it can be considered a type of ad hominem (Latin for to the man or person) fallacy, too, but rather than saying that the speaker's argument must be incorrect because of who he is, it's saying the opposite. One is still pointing "to the man" rather than his argument. If he were considered authoritative, then just that he thinks something ought to be meaningful even if not convincing. If he enjoyed consensus among other critical thinkers, then that would be meaningful as well. But neither apply here.

You might consider it unfair, or an ad hominem fallacy, or the genetic fallacy - and I would disagree with you if you did - but I'm just not interested in anything coming from creationist sources. I didn't look at your video link, although I did read your review of it, and thank you for that. I don't mind giving you a few seconds of my time scanning what you wrote, since you paraphrased his position and you're here (he's not).

I seem to be replying to a lot of people who have not even heard what Garte says.
BTW what you just said is ad hominem at creationist sources, saying that what they say must be incorrect because of who they are.
But of course you have not heard what Garte says and probably do not realist that he is pro evolution frpm Luca and sees it as fitting with the Bible.
He has an issue with chemical evolution as a viable way to get to Luca however.

 

[ratiocinator]

If we are viewing evolution theory as a design process, which it clearly is, then the term "goal" applies, as the result of design is the goal of the design.

No. A goal is an aim or purpose. Evolution can be regarded as a sort of design process but not one that has a particular aim or purpose.

 

[PureX]

No. A goal is an aim or purpose. Evolution can be regarded as a sort of design process but not one that has a particular aim or purpose.

But you don't get to decide that for anyone else. Mostly because you can't know it to be so, or show it to be so.

Design implies intent. The intent to achieve a specific goal. As an atheist you may not like this logic, but it is logical.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But you don't get to decide that for anyone else. Mostly because you can't know it to be so, or show it to be so.

Design implies intent. The intent to achieve a specific goal. As an atheist you may not like this logic, but it is logical.

Only if you don't understand the difference between using the term "design" in a pre-scriptive rather than a de-scriptive way.

 

[ratiocinator]

But you don't get to decide that for anyone else. Mostly because you can't know it to be so, or show it to be so.

But we do and we can. The process of evolution can, to a limited extent, be considered a 'design process' but it breaks down when you try to give it a goal or aim because the process doesn't have those.

You could argue that there is some other process going on that is interfering with evolution as the theory describes and that would give it a goal, but there is zero evidence for that.

As an atheist you may not like this logic, but it is logical.

It is not logical to push the comparison beyond the science, without evidence.

 

[PureX]

Only if you don't understand the difference between using the term "design" in a pre-scriptive rather than a de-scriptive way.

Makes no difference when none of us can prove either way to be the 'right' way.

Physical existence is the result of very complex design that results in a very intricate and specific outcome. This implies that the outcome is the intent. It doesn't prove it, of course, but it certainly does imply it, and there is no honest, logical way around that.

Sorry.

 

[PureX]

But we do and we can. The process of evolution can, to a limited extent, be considered a 'design process' but it breaks down when you try to give it a goal or aim because the process doesn't have those.

Of course the evolutionary process has a goal. The goal is the continuation of life by the successful adaptation of life forms to the environment they inhabit and that effects their survival. The whole process is designed to achieve that goal.

You could argue that there is some other process going on that is interfering with evolution as the theory describes and that would give it a goal, but there is zero evidence for that.


It is not logical to push the comparison beyond the science, without evidence.

Your comment here indicates an absurd bias that has no basis in reason or reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

Physical existence is the result of very complex design that results in a very intricate and specific outcome. This implies that the outcome is the intent.

Not only have you run off on a tangent, but this is nothing but a baseless assumption. How could we possibly tell that the outcome was intended, rather than just what happened?

 

[PureX]

Not only have you run off on a tangent, but this is nothing but a baseless assumption. How could we possibly tell that the outcome was intended, rather than just what happened?

When a specific process results in a specific outcome, we can logically surmise that the specific outcome was the intended result of the specific process. And the term "design" refers to the parameters (possibilities and limitations) of that process. What about this can't you accept?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Makes no difference when none of us can prove either way to be the 'right' way.

Nobody can prove anything about anything. That doesn't mean that, because of the employment of a specific word, it is therefore logical to make a leap of logic.

Physical existence is the result of very complex design that results in a very intricate and specific outcome. This implies that the outcome is the intent.

Again, only if you don't understand the difference between design as prescriptive and design as descriptive. I could describe "an orchestra of violence", but no reasonable human being would conclude that this implies a literal host of instrument-players and a conductor committing an act of assault.

I mean, you can replace the word "design" with "process" in that statement. Would you therefore argue that the sentence employed that way does NOT imply there is intent? If so, then you admit that your argument is one drawing unreasonable conclusions from semantics, rather than a reasonable conclusion drawn from inference.

It doesn't prove it, of course, but it certainly does imply it, and there is no honest, logical way around that.

Sorry.

Yes, there is. It's a leap of moon logic. You can't disprove that a literal cow jumped over the literal moon, but that doesn't mean it's reasonable to believe it.

Sorry.

 

[ratiocinator]

When a specific process results in a specific outcome, we can logically surmise that the specific outcome was the intended result of the specific process.

Right, so when I shuffle a deck of cards, the resulting sequences was intended? If a cup falls off my table and smashes on the floor, the resulting arrangement of the pieces was intended?

What about this can't you accept?

It's just silly.

 

[PureX]

Right, so when I shuffle a deck of cards, the resulting sequences was intended?

Exactly. The intent of the process of shuffling them was to gain the result of them being in an unpredictable sequence.

If a cup falls off my table and smashes on the floor, the resulting arrangement of the pieces was intended?

That is not a designed process. But if it were, yes, the resulting "random" arrangement of the pieces will have been the intended result.

It's just silly.

You should be embarrassed posing these foolish scenarios trying to deny something so glaringly obvious. But it just shows how an intractable bias warps one's integrity.

 

[ratiocinator]

The intent of the process of shuffling them was to gain the result of them being in an unpredictable sequence.

You said "a specific process results in a specific outcome", so, using your 'logic' it's the specific outcome, i.e. the exact sequence, that had to be intended.

That is not a designed process.

Neither is evolution in that sense.

You should be embarrassed posing these foolish scenarios trying to deny something so glaringly obvious.

Like much of what you claim, it isn't obvious, it's absurd.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

he says that evolution and the Bible can be compatible and so any use of evolution by atheists/skeptics to deny God is unwarranted.

There you go again with that straw man. You really have no interest in why that's wrong or how to make it right, do you? Nor do you seem to mind that I have promised to correct you every time you make it as I will again now. Most atheists neither claim that gods are impossible nor nonexistent, nor do they reject biblical god claims because the conflict with the theory of evolution. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. They reject god claims without asserting that they don't exist - merely that they have no reason to believe they exist even were there no such thing as science, and that they live as if gods don't exist. That's what agnostic atheism is, and it represents the position of most atheists.

You have the same choice again: learn this and stop making this mistake, or demonstrate that you can't or won't and continue to be corrected. You also have the choice to address this now - you never have in the past - or just continue ignoring it like it's never been written.

Garte says that atheist have a rational process to hang their hat on, an intellectual reason, with evolution, to say that there is no God.

And yet again. Are you incapable of conceiving what I've written to you here? It seems so. I don't think you understand the objection, and I don't think you care enough to try to understand, that, or you not only just can't, you might not even be aware that you are being disagreed with, as there's no evidence in your replies that you do.

He claims that science is full of comments by scientists that there is design and mentions Dawkins also who says this but claims it is just an illusion that it looks like design.

I doubt that you've paraphrased Dawkins correctly. And you are committing an equivocation error, conflated the pattern or design in a natural process such as the hexagonally symmetry of a snowflake with the act of an intelligence planning and designing something deliberately. I'm pretty sure that Dawkins is acknowledging that one of these exist in nature but not the other, and that you would like that distinction ignored so that you can imply that even Dawkins thinks the world looks like it needs an intelligent designer.

It is the origins of life through chemical evolution which is not scientifically sound in his opinion.

Why should that matter to anybody else?

the Bible is not intended to be an historical account of the material origins of mankind.

Sure it was. The ancients speculated on how the world they found themselves in god to be the way it is given the assumption of a omnipotent, omniscient creator god that created them and was interested in their behavior. Like all creation mythicists, they were guessing based in limited evidence, and they guessed wrong. The evidence that the biblical mythicists believed them as being historically accurate is in the myths themselves and the commandment to honor the Sabbath just like God did following six days of creation. That's offered as history, as an event that literally occurred in the past.

It is intended to be a mythical representation of the origins of human behavior.

Myths are not representations. Allegories are. Metaphors are. Myths are speculations about what really happened. The origin of human behavior is given in these myths as fact. Adam and Eve chose to disobey because they were made able to and wanting to, and the rest has been a series of smitings and punishments including perdition as the just fruits resulting from an event that occurred somewhere one day. There's no symbolism at all there, just a speculation about how and why the world is as we they found it.

 

[PureX]

You said "a specific process results in a specific outcome", so, using your 'logic' it's the specific outcome, i.e. the exact sequence, that had to be intended.

Please stop. You're just embarrassing yourself!

 

[ratiocinator]

Please stop. You're just embarrassing yourself!

Running away again? This sort of non-answer / non-argument / attempted insult is always funny.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No he says that evolution and the Bible can be compatible and so any use of evolution by atheists/skeptics to deny God is unwarranted.

I've never seen any atheist make such a claim that evolution negates the existence of a god.
I myself have pointed out many, many times that evolution and creator gods aren't incompatible. In fact, most of my Christian friends and family members fully accept evolution as something created by God.

He claims that science is full of comments by scientists that there is design and mentions Dawkins also who says this but claims it is just an illusion that it looks like design.

I don't see design.

Garte says that atheist have a rational process to hang their hat on, an intellectual reason, with evolution, to say that there is no God. But it does not work when the Bible does not disagree with evolution.

Sounds like he's arguing a straw man then.

It is the origins of life through chemical evolution which is not scientifically sound in his opinion.

Which of course, is abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

[Brian2]

He did not show this. He declared existing biochemistry impossibly complex, and not possible without divine intervention -- supported only by his own incredulity.
His conclusion is not 'sensible'. It's a false dilemma.

I don't remember him saying anything about being impossibly complex but I remember him saying something like, just hoping that chemistry in unpredictable environments is going to stick to the path you want, is unreasonable.

I disagree. Natural laws are known, measurable and testable. The role of random variation ('blind chance') plus natural selection, is known, tested, and massively evidenced. An appeal to effect without mechanism -- magic -- by "a being who cannot be studied by science because He is a spirit," an unevidenced being, is not sensible

But there is evidence for the Bible God in the true predictions in the Bible. So God is not unevidenced.
Also since Garte does agree with evolution and that the mechanism of evolution can produce variety in life as we see it, you seem to be arguing a strawman.
Stick to the origins question and not the evolution question.

I agree, and the conclusion that it was done by magic, by an unevidenced magician, is not the sensible conclusion.

Strike out the "unevidenced" and turn the language of bias "magic", into something more unbiased "in a way we don't as yet understand", and then realise that observations do actually indicate an intelligence behind origins, now we have a statement that is more in line with what is being proposed.

Huh? You're saying that belief without need or evidence is reasonable?

I didn't say that, it's in your imagination.