What idea in it makes you not think of evolution as true? And poll

[night912]

[citation needed]

I wasn't. Were you?

 

[Link]

Here's Michael Behe's definition:

"...a single system which is composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning."
Source

Can you name all the parts of the mind that when one of those part is removed, the mind will cease to exist. And can you also provide some evidence of known cases of that happening.

Keep in mind, the brain is not the mind.

I don't have to name them because it's obvious ghost in machine is too vastly different then non-ghost and so even if you don't know the parts necessary, you can see the irreducible complexity situation.

 

[night912]

I don't have to name them because it's obvious ghost in machine is too vastly different then non-ghost and so even if you don't know the parts necessary, you can see the irreducible complexity situation.

If it's so obvious, then how come you are not able to demonstrate this. You don't think that you have to name the parts of the mind that makes the mind function, but thought that it was necessary for you to name things that is irrelevant to the mind, such as ghost and machine.

Here's an example of something that is obvious:

@Link claims that it's obvious that the mind is an example of irreducible complexity but through observations, I've come to the conclusion that it's obvious he can't demonstrate his claim to be true. Here are evidence showing that he can't do it. Obviously, he attempted in doing so, but no demonstration was presented. No explanation was presented. His post consists of him dodging my point and used a red herring as a distraction while attempting to runaway unnoticed. Obviously, he failed to do that.

I don't care about ghosts right now because it's irrelevant. It's just a red herring that you're using in order to dodge the point that I brought up.

You claimed that the "mind" is an example of irreducible complexity. Then when I presented the definition of irreducible complexity, you failed demonstrate that the qualities as an example irreducible complexity.

At this particular point of the discussion, I'm not even concerned with whether
IC being true or not. So there's no need to be scared about being unable to provide evidence to support your initial assertion. We're only at the point of the discussion where you you demonstrate that the "mind" qualifies with just the concept of irreducible complexity. It's still too early for the nightmare.

 

[Lain]

If it's so obvious, then how come you are not able to demonstrate this.

Some things are knowable but unutterable, perhaps whatever he has in mind is that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I wish people would put a differentiation between believing in microevolution and macroevolution.

Why?

That's like putting a "differentiation" in context of gravity between falling from a chair and falling from the empire state building.

Even though you'll hit the ground a lot harder when it's from the building, the same process underpins it.
Evolution is the exact same.
Evolution over 5-10 generations is almost unobservable, much like how falling from a chair will barely scratch you. Evolution over 50k to 100k generations though, that will be more like the smack on the ground you get when jumping from the building.

The same process underpins it. No differentiation is made because there is no difference to be made.

I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.

Which is like believing that jumping from the empire state is going to have the same effect as falling from a chair.

A deer-like animal never evolved in to a whale, for example.

The evidence, demonstrates otherwise.

Life has only been on this planet for a few thousands years.

Oldest traces of life are 3.8 billion years old.

You can deny it all you want but it's not going to make a difference.
The facts are what they are.

Saying life is only a few thousands years old is like saying that north america from coast to coast is only a couple 100 meters. That's the margin of error here...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Exactly, it's not random. It can't be. The complex structures that exist, all of which have to exist together in order to function, present in living cells, takes randomness out of the equation. Biochemistry is a science, conducted by humans, but doesn't explain the phenomenon. It can explain the physics around a cellular membrane being constructed of phospholipid bilayers but isn't an explanation for how the engineering occurred without an engineer.

Evolution explains exactly that.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The best we can do, at this point, with a lack of hard data is make creative assumptions about how life started

Actually, one should look at all the evidence we have so far and use that to build informed hypothesis which allow for testing and falsification, instead of pulling "creative assumptions" out of our behinds.

I am a fan of creative thinking. But creative thinking is theory, not fact and is a space where there should be plenty of room for various possibilities.

Disagree. Well, sort of. Depends what you mean with that there should be "plenty of room".

If by that you mean that any and all ideas should be taken seriously, then no. Absolutely not.
There's a golden rule here: what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

So whatever you come up with, you better have *something*, some kind of evidence, which at least sort of points in your direction. How serious your idea will be considered a "possibility" will depend directly on the amount and quality of evidence you can produce in favor of your idea.

In short: not all ideas are created equal.

In my personal humble opinion the level of complexity we see in even the simplest living organisms suggests engineering and implementation.

First, that's an argument from incredulity, borderlining the argument from ignorance.

Secondly, complexity in organisms is exactly what evolution explains

Its like a book

No. It's more like a gigantic bio-chemical chain reaction of organic molecules.

You look at its information and construction and come to a conclusion that it was designed with intent and created with purpose

Not at all. Especially not its structure. Its structure (a nested hierarchy where the vast majority of stuff it carries around is actually inactive "baggage" from ancient times) is the very opposite of what we would expect from an engineer.

No engineer would create a product line using a nested hierarchy. It's ridiculously inefficient for manufacturing, causes only problems and no advantages, is far more energy consuming then it could be, and it's wasteful use of resources.

This is thus not at all what we would expect from a designer point of view.

On the other hand........... the natural process of evolution can only result in exactly such a structure.

So, no.... life most definitely does not look like it was "designed". Not even remotely. There's literally nothing there that points to artificial design. Nothing at all.

Instead, life looks exactly as it should look, if species were the result of biological evolution from a common ancestor. And I do mean exactly.

Studying Biology, not a biologist, just some college courses, RNA, DNA, Golgi Apparatus, Endoplasmic Reticulum, Ribosomes, Mitochondria, etc, suggest this to me.

It's called confirmation bias.

I will admit that this point of view fits comfortably with my Christian world view and admit I have a certain amount of bias on the topic as a result. Lucky for me I have yet to hear an alternative that really challenges that position but I like to believe I would not rule out alternative explanations based on my world view alone.

Well, keep studying.
Good for you, btw!

Keep your mind open and your bible closed.
(sorry that was joke)

 

[Audie]

Some things are knowable but unutterable, perhaps whatever he has in mind is that.

Safe claim onaccounta by definition ya cant utter it.

 

[Audie]

Actually, one should look at all the evidence we have so far and use that to build informed hypothesis which allow for testing and falsification, instead of pulling "creative assumptions" out of our behinds.



Disagree. Well, sort of. Depends what you mean with that there should be "plenty of room".

If by that you mean that any and all ideas should be taken seriously, then no. Absolutely not.
There's a golden rule here: what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

So whatever you come up with, you better have *something*, some kind of evidence, which at least sort of points in your direction. How serious your idea will be considered a "possibility" will depend directly on the amount and quality of evidence you can produce in favor of your idea.

In short: not all ideas are created equal.




First, that's an argument from incredulity, borderlining the argument from ignorance.

Secondly, complexity in organisms is exactly what evolution explains



No. It's more like a gigantic bio-chemical chain reaction of organic molecules.




Not at all. Especially not its structure. Its structure (a nested hierarchy where the vast majority of stuff it carries around is actually inactive "baggage" from ancient times) is the very opposite of what we would expect from an engineer.

No engineer would create a product line using a nested hierarchy. It's ridiculously inefficient for manufacturing, causes only problems and no advantages, is far more energy consuming then it could be, and it's wasteful use of resources.

This is thus not at all what we would expect from a designer point of view.

On the other hand........... the natural process of evolution can only result in exactly such a structure.

So, no.... life most definitely does not look like it was "designed". Not even remotely. There's literally nothing there that points to artificial design. Nothing at all.

Instead, life looks exactly as it should look, if species were the result of biological evolution from a common ancestor. And I do mean exactly.



It's called confirmation bias.



Well, keep studying.
Good for you, btw!

Keep your mind open and your bible closed.
(sorry that was joke)

Study of comparative anatomy makes the
inefficient goofy " design very obvious.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

The reason people don't make this differentiation is because such a distinction is irrelevant to the evolutionary process, except insofar as one can speak of small changes (micro) that can over longer timescales accumulate into larger ones (macro).

It's true that some creationists try to square the circle by admitting micro-evolution happens (you do have to be pretty daft to deny that, after all, when we can see it happening before our eyes in things like the Omicron variant of Covid), while still denying that new species can arise this way. But while that apparent compromise may stop you looking silly to the average person, it is still pretty silly to anyone who knows any of the relevant science. We know the age of the rocks from radiometric dating, we know how long it took for the Atlantic Ocean to open, we can even detect the magnetic stripes on the ocean floor where each reversal of the magnetic poles took place. And there is piles of other evidence too.

Good afternoon exchemist. Microevolution is evidenced. Take for example dog variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment. Therefore, in my opinion it takes vasts amount of 'faith' to believe in macroevolution. Yet it's a corrupted faith. It will work like gangrene in the spiritual life of those who adhere to such a belief.

In terms of radiometric dating, to date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

There is no difference. Macroevolution isn't a different process, it's just lots of microevolution.


That would make your god a liar.

Hi ratiocinator. That's not true. Macroevolution isn't lots of microevolution, it is something very much different. No matter how much microevolution occurs, it will not become macroevolution. Humans will always be human. We were created in Yahweh's image, we read in Genesis. As stated: "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No." Roger Lewin, “Evolution Theory under Fire,” Science, Vol. 210, 21 November 1980, p. 883.

Each example of macroevolution would require thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an upward, beneficial change in complexity. Therefore, microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Why?

That's like putting a "differentiation" in context of gravity between falling from a chair and falling from the empire state building.

Even though you'll hit the ground a lot harder when it's from the building, the same process underpins it.
Evolution is the exact same.
Evolution over 5-10 generations is almost unobservable, much like how falling from a chair will barely scratch you. Evolution over 50k to 100k generations though, that will be more like the smack on the ground you get when jumping from the building.

The same process underpins it. No differentiation is made because there is no difference to be made.



Which is like believing that jumping from the empire state is going to have the same effect as falling from a chair.




The evidence, demonstrates otherwise.



Oldest traces of life are 3.8 billion years old.

You can deny it all you want but it's not going to make a difference.
The facts are what they are.

Saying life is only a few thousands years old is like saying that north america from coast to coast is only a couple 100 meters. That's the margin of error here...

Hi and good afternoon TagliatelliMonster. I think I have answered your queries in the above posts. But in terms of life being 3.8 billion years old. You are treating this as fact. How do you explain DNA being found in a supposedly 125 million year old dinosaur fossils, or stars dated from before the Universe supposedly began. You have so much faith in what you have extrapolated from scientific measurements, not realizing there's a likelihood - and I would say certainty - that the science methodology is wrong.

 

[exchemist]

Good afternoon exchemist. Microevolution is evidenced. Take for example dog variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment. Therefore, in my opinion it takes vasts amount of 'faith' to believe in macroevolution. Yet it's a corrupted faith. It will work like gangrene in the spiritual life of those who adhere to such a belief.

In terms of radiometric dating, to date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

You need to provide evidence for such statements. The constancy of radioactive decay curves, in particular, is extremely well-established. There is no reason whatever to suppose decay rates have changed over time. As for disturbance of the process, e.g. by radioactive material leaching into or out of the geological site from which a sample has been taken, that is easily remedied by taking more samples from other sites of the same geological formation.

The science hangs together very well. If it did not, it would be subject to challenge from within science.

 

[ratiocinator]

Therefore, in my opinion it takes vasts amount of 'faith' to believe in macroevolution.

Simply untrue. There is vast amounts of evidence, not least genetic, that 'macroevolution' has taken place. And. as was pointed out, there is no difference in the process. Small changes ('microevolution') accumulate to large changes. What do you think would stop that happening?

Common Descent vs. Common Design: 4 Examples Explained Better by Descent - Articles
Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles
Genesis and the Genome (PDF)
Statistical evidence for common ancestry: New tests of universal ancestry
Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia
The Evidence For Evolution: A Succinct Introduction For Denialists

...and so on, and so on, and so on. It takes truly vast amounts or reality denial to think evolution didn't happen

In terms of radiometric dating, to date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

Radiometric dating methods can be checked against each other, and, where necessary, calibrated with other methods. See: Radiometric Dating.

 

[Audie]

Good afternoon exchemist. Microevolution is evidenced. Take for example dog variability. When bred for certain traits, dogs become different and distinctive. This is a common example of microevolution—changes in size, shape, and color—or minor genetic alterations. It is not macroevolution: an upward, beneficial increase in complexity, as evolutionists claim happened millions of times between bacteria and man. Macroevolution has never been observed in any breeding experiment. Therefore, in my opinion it takes vasts amount of 'faith' to believe in macroevolution. Yet it's a corrupted faith. It will work like gangrene in the spiritual life of those who adhere to such a belief.

In terms of radiometric dating, to date an event or thing that preceded written records, one must assume that the dating clock has operated at a known rate, that the clock’s initial setting is known, and that the clock has not been disturbed. These three assumptions are almost always unstated, overlooked, or invalid.

"Upward beneficial increase in complexity"
hardly explains why bacteria still exist,
or why there are tiny colorless blind cave
salamanders with no lungs.

Maybe theres some deficiency in your understanding of evolution.

Lets compare evolution to erosion.

You can see "micro erosion" in a muddy
river, wind blown dust, a rockfall in the
mountains.
Its hardly unreasonable to infer " macroerosion"
when looking at a big canyon or the low eroded stump of an extinct volcano.
Theres no stop sign that says, halt, erode no further.
Perhaps you can identify the built in limits
to "microevolutiin"?

 

[ratiocinator]

Hi ratiocinator. That's not true. Macroevolution isn't lots of microevolution, it is something very much different. No matter how much microevolution occurs, it will not become macroevolution. Humans will always be human. We were created in Yahweh's image, we read in Genesis.

Blind faith.

As stated: "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.

Quote mining, and from a very old source to boot. Also in a news article, about a conference, not a peer reviewed science paper.

"The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear. No. What is not so clear, however, is whether microcvolution is totally decoupled from macrocvolulion: the two can more probably be seen as a continuum with a notable overlap.

The issues with which participants wrestled fell into three major areas: the tempo of evolution, the mode of evolutionary change, and the constraints on the physical form of new organisms."

-- Evolutionary Theory under Fire on JSTOR
​

You should also refer to this, (that I gave before): Testing Common Ancestry: It’s All About the Mutations - Articles that compares the types of mutation in the human population and those between humans and chimpanzees, and finds the same pattern.

Each example of macroevolution would require thousands of “just right” mutations. Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an upward, beneficial change in complexity. Therefore, microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution.

Sounds like you don't understand natural selection.

 

[Heyo]

Saying life is only a few thousands years old is like saying that north america from coast to coast is only a couple 100 meters. That's the margin of error here...

Actually ...
it's as if you said it's just a few meters. You are 2 orders of magnitude wrong.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi ratiocinator. That's not true.

Except that it is true.

Macroevolution isn't lots of microevolution, it is something very much different.

No, it isn't.

No matter how much microevolution occurs, it will not become macroevolution

Except that it will.
Just like taking a lot of 1-inch steps is inevitably going to result in walking for many many miles.

Humans will always be human

And roman languages will always be roman languages.
Nevertheless latin evolved into spanish, italian, french, portuguese.

Yes, humans will remain humans. Evolution is a vertical process.
If humans would produce something else then humans, evolution will be falsified.

The off spring of humans will remain humans and subspecies of humans.

We were created in Yahweh's image, we read in Genesis.

Statements in a book are of no concern.

Each example of macroevolution would require thousands of “just right” mutations.

What does that even mean?
Sounds like teleological fallacious thinking.

Every new born comes with dozens of mutations which are all past on to off spring, who in turns adds dozens of its own.

Over generations, these mutations accumulate.

Microevolution can be thought of as horizontal (or even downward) change, whereas macroevolution, if it were ever observed, would involve an upward, beneficial change in complexity. Therefore, microevolution plus time will not produce macroevolution.

Another strawman.

This is creationist propaganda and has nothing to do with what evolution theory actually says about these things. In fact, the theory itself makes no such distinction at all between "macro" and "micro".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hi and good afternoon TagliatelliMonster. I think I have answered your queries in the above posts.

It was nothing but sheer empty denial on your part.

But in terms of life being 3.8 billion years old. You are treating this as fact

Because it is fact. Demonstrable, independently verifiable, objective fact.

How do you explain DNA being found in a supposedly 125 million year old dinosaur fossils

Another PRATT.
This nonsense has been refuted a thousand times over.

Dino Blood and the Young Earth (talkorigins.org)

“Soft Tissue” Found in Dinosaur Bones | Letters to Creationists (wordpress.com)

, or stars dated from before the Universe supposedly began

Another PRATT

Evidence for the Big Bang (talkorigins.org)

You have so much faith in what you have extrapolated from scientific measurements

One does not require "faith" when one has evidence.

Also, I always find it hilarious when creationists try to "shoot down" science by claiming it requires "faith" - as if faith is a bad thing. It is a bad thing off course, but it's extremely ironic that people who's only basis they have for their beliefs is "faith", is going to use that to try and handwave away contradicting viewpoints.

It's also hilarious that apparently, when it comes to anything other then their own beliefs, they understand that they can just dismiss things when they are only based on "faith".

Maybe you should hold your own beliefs to that standard....

, not realizing there's a likelihood - and I would say certainty - that the science methodology is wrong.

And yet your pc boots, nukes explode and GPS pinpoints your location pretty accurately.

And yet all 3 rely on the very same theories you have to deny when you wish to argue against radio-active dating mechanisms.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually ...
it's as if you said it's just a few meters. You are 2 orders of magnitude wrong.

Yeah I didn't calculate it.

At first I even wrote "a few miles" and figured that it had to be a lot less and then edited it.
I was still too optimistic it seems.