Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
(17-02-2015 03:54 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?

The term you introduced (EXAPTATION) is a fancy sounding word that tries to make sense of the "apparent" deign in nature, and thus to convince us that nature never intended to produce fur, or feathers, or scales, or body armor (like the tortoise or bugs have). We'll talk about that later when we go "specific" with some animals, if you don't mind. It's a difficult concept to explain/accept and it takes time to do both. There are too many other things to talk about, and we don't want to bite more than we can chew, do we? So let's start simple and go from there.

I am quite familiar with the Dover Trial and the way Dr. Michael Behe used the flagellum to prove it was irreducibly complex. I also know they eventually proved him wrong and that the flagellum could still function without some of its components, although you have to admit, not as efficiently as when it had them all in place. So, another point for you. I wouldn't put my money on the flagellum, though, because there are many other animals (real size ones, not microscopic) that can prove irreducible complexity better.

And in order to do that, I want to suggest the addition of another tool to our discussion. Let's each pick one animal (of our own choosing) and try to bring it as an argument in our debate. We don't have to start it right now. It's just an idea.

My (pre)programming question was very important for your understanding of "where I come from." I will refer to it repeatedly in my future arguments, so I wanted to make sure you understand the same thing as I do when you say something is (pre)programmed.

To answer your question, [What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?] I think we are at a point in our discussion where it is too soon for me to do that. So, if you don't mind I want to be allowed not to answer it for now.

And now my next question, which is actually related to my previous post:

Question 3:

Do you think there are things evolution really couldn't have pulled off without a little nudge?
In other words, do you think there are things evolution can't really account for (or has a hard time explaining), which forces you to accept it must have accomplished them somehow even though they are difficult to explain?
I expect a simple yes or no. You don't have to tell me what they are, if the answer is affirmative.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
18-02-2015, 10:17 AM
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
(18-02-2015 06:26 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  This is the funniest post I have seen so far on this forum. I'm talking about the one with the car, of course. It actually made me laugh. Thumbsup
But I think I'm supposed to reply to the previous one, which is exactly what I am going to do. However, I will split my answer in two different posts. One to make a more general statement, and one to answer some of the arguments in your post. I hope you don't mind. You had two posts back to back yourself, so why should you?

Thank you and no I don’t mind, knock yourself out.

(18-02-2015 06:26 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  I have to admit that the argument you put forth is quite compelling. If I weren't standing on this side of the canyon, I'd be happy to have advocates like you to support "our case." Obviously, if I weren't standing on this side of the canyon, I'd have to be standing (or at least sitting) on your side, right? That's why I said "our side" there. I don't suppose there is a third place where you can be standing in this situation, provided that you do have a conviction about it. "Oh, I'm afraid you are both mistaken, gentlemen. Neither of you is right. Evolution is false so it can't be the explanation for life, but there is no God either. The truth is actually..."
This reply might sound childish, but there is reason to its madness: I want to make sure you agree with me that there are only two possibilities:

(1) Evolution did it, or
(2) God did it.

Actually I don’t agree there are two possibilities. Only the first, but then that’s why we’re having this friendly discussion. Big Grin

(18-02-2015 06:26 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  From now on, my argument assumes that you will not suggest a third or a fourth possible explanation for life. If you do, we'll address it/them separately, although it/they will probably converge to one of the two I suggested.
Now, looking at the two possibilities, I have a question: Could those two be true at the same time, or are they so incompatible that it would have to be either one or the other? I believe this is the key to our entire debate.
If we—hypothetically speaking—went with option (2), would that automatically rule out number (1)? Well, duh! The God of the Bible would, cause he created the world in six days, apparently. They're still working on the exact day and date, but some Christians are sure it didn't take God more than six days to do it. After all, he only created one universe with billions of galaxies, each containing trillions of stars, not five or twenty. How long would that take? (Sorry, about that, but I couldn't help myself there; sarcasm is my favorite type of humor, and it was too good of an opportunity to let it pass.)
But, getting back to my question, who said the God of the Bible is the "true" God? "Hey, buddy, apparently he said it himself. Several times in the Bible, actually, so be careful what you say there, okay?" Yeah, right. There are so many religions in the world, we would have to accept dozens of "true" gods, each claiming to be the only one. I may be a simpleton, but even I know 1+1+1+...+1 is not going to be 1. The Christians would say, "That's because the equation is wrong. It should be:

1+0+0+...+0=1.

"Oh, no, no, no!" a Muslim would chime in. "You Christians have it all wrong. It is:

0+1+0+...+0=1.

"No it's not! Where did you get that from? The true equation is:

0+0+1+...+0=1.

Oh, brother! Facepalm Timeout! Could you people make up your mind, please? You're getting us all confused down here.
Tell you what. I have a better idea. Let's say:

0+0+0+...+0=0

This way, there is going to be no more confusion, no matter where you put "your" zero, okay? Thus, the controversy about who has what and who doesn't can be finally put to rest, and everybody lives happily..., I wanna say "ever after" but I know that's not technically true, so I'll say... until they die.

Now, enough joking around, and let's go back to my question. If there was a God, not the one of the Bible, not the one of the Koran, but an Intelligent Force outside this universe which caused everything to be in existence, from the very atoms to the energy that drives the atoms "crazy" and causes them to interact with one another and make stuff—I admit that's a big claim, but I said "if"—what difference would it make how he did it? Presuming that there was such a God, would a process like evolution be "off limits" for him? "Oh, sorry God, you can't use evolution to bring us here cause that's already taken. Mother Nature called it first, remember?"
No matter what I do, I always end up joking.Big Grin

You are now arguing for Deism and that’s fine with me but leave it for another question or else this will get too muddled. We’re currently discussing evolution and as I understand it I’m arguing for the Natural Process of Evolution to explain the myriad of organisms we observe and you are arguing for supernatural tinkering no? Let’s see if either of us can convince the other on this particular topic before we jump to another one if that’s OK with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

(18-02-2015 06:26 AM)‘Job_1207’ Wrote:  On the other hand, option number (1) rules out the existence of God. Any god. The point of the whole theory is to show that life can be explained through natural processes that didn't have to involve, as Mr. Richard Dawkins likes to put it, fairies or unicorns.
So, our debate of evolution versus God can be translated into a different one:

(1) Evolution did it all by itself
(2) God did it (through evolution)

Or even better:

(1) Evolution did it all by itself
(2) Evolution did it, being guided by a mysterious someone or something we call God (for lack of a better word).

Or, the shortest version of that:

(1) Evolution did it all by itself
(2) Evolution did it with outside help

Those last two seem so close now that they can be easily mistaken, and the only thing that keeps them apart is that "outside help." If that outside help is vague and blends into the background, we can easily start with (2—there is a God) and we end up in (1—there is no god). So the key to understanding and solving this controversy—God or No-god—is to look closely at the animal world and the claims evolution makes, and try to identify the "help" evolution actually got, if any. And when we're done with that, we'll know the answer to our debate, won't we?

The thing is Job_1207, we know how the process of evolution works. It has been observed, tested, found to be predictive and can answer how organisms change by descent with modification through genetic inheritance. It’s not like we’re missing a step anywhere in the theory. We have evidence showing how living organisms, over time, change AND WE CAN EXPLAIN HOW. We see it with the morphological evidence and all the way down to the very DNA! It is a fascinating field of study.

Injecting an unecessary “magic hand” adds nothing to the process. The process doesn’t need it or require it to work. At no point does the science say “we’re missing a step”...anywhere.
(I hate using non-living analogies but it would be similar to saying that when I turn the key on that Benz gullwing it could only turn over if an invisble guiding hand caused the spark in the spark plugs. No, we know why spark plugs work. This will come back to bite me in the ass but man I love that car!)

So, an unobservable, untestable “outside influence” on a process that can be thoroughly explained by Natural Causes falls under the realm of fantasy.

Now let me go to your next post.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
18-02-2015, 10:51 AM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2015 11:25 AM by Full Circle.)
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
(18-02-2015 07:23 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  
(17-02-2015 03:54 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?

The term you introduced (EXAPTATION) is a fancy sounding word that tries to make sense of the “apparent” deign in nature, and thus to convince us that nature never intended to produce fur, or feathers, or scales, or body armor (like the tortoise or bugs have).

Let me stop you right there for a clarification. Belittling a term you might not be familiar with is cheap. We have words to describe and represent concepts. The word EXAPTATION is not unlike the words gravity, momentum, gestation and so forth. The “word” is not trying to convince you of anything, it represents a concept, in this case that of body adaptations going through the process of evolution and having different purposes in the very process. I hope we can continue our discussion without resorting to misrepresentations (sarcasm and irony is not only expected but encouraged and so are puns Thumbsup )
By the way the site I gave for the definition of Exaptation was created by the University of California Museum of Paleontology, hardly a fly-by-night entity don’t you think?

(18-02-2015 07:23 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  We’ll talk about that later when we go “specific” with some animals, if you don't mind. It's a difficult concept to explain/accept and it takes time to do both. There are too many other things to talk about, and we don't want to bite more than we can chew, do we? So let's start simple and go from there.

I am quite familiar with the Dover Trial and the way Dr. Michael Behe used the flagellum to prove it was irreducibly complex. I also know they eventually proved him wrong and that the flagellum could still function without some of its components, although you have to admit, not as efficiently as when it had them all in place. So, another point for you. I wouldn’t put my money on the flagellum, though, because there are many other animals (real size ones, not microscopic) that can prove irreducible complexity better.

I can’t wait to see what examples you come up with. If they are better than that of the flagellum they could have used you at the trial. [Image: qDzFdjp.gif]

EDIT: You have an enormous misunderstanding of what “efficiency” entails in this case. The flagellum, prior to evolving with additional proteins, worked just fine at that stage. Once it evolved to what it is today it seems to work just fine now too. In the future it may again evolve into something much more conducive to its survival and I can see future creationists arguing for just how inefficient it used to be. Facepalm

(18-02-2015 07:23 AM)‘Job_1207’ Wrote:  And in order to do that, I want to suggest the addition of another tool to our discussion. Let's each pick one animal (of our own choosing) and try to bring it as an argument in our debate. We don't have to start it right now. It's just an idea.

My (pre)programming question was very important for your understanding of "where I come from." I will refer to it repeatedly in my future arguments, so I wanted to make sure you understand the same thing as I do when you say something is (pre)programmed.

To answer your question, [What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?] I think we are at a point in our discussion where it is too soon for me to do that. So, if you don’t mind I want to be allowed not to answer it for now.

Consider

(18-02-2015 07:23 AM)‘Job_1207’ pid=‘738050 Wrote:And now my next question, which is actually related to my previous post:

Question 3:

Do you think there are things evolution really couldn't have pulled off without a little nudge?
In other words, do you think there are things evolution can't really account for (or has a hard time explaining), which forces you to accept it must have accomplished them somehow even though they are difficult to explain?
I expect a simple yes or no. You don't have to tell me what they are, if the answer is affirmative.

A. No. There is nothing for which a credible, natural account cannot be made.
Where we don’t, or can’t know for certain, we can hypothesize an evolutionary explanation that fits logically within the Theory.


Question #4 FC:
What are these things that you think the Theory of Evolution can’t account for?


   

EDITS will always be noted as such.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
18-02-2015, 05:22 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2015 05:28 PM by Job_1207.)
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
I have to take my hat off to you again for the way you have presented your arguments. You have clearly outdone yourself in this new post, which makes me realize I couldn't have picked a better adversary for this Boxing Match. You seem to be a thorough, well organized person. I respect and admire that, because am I the same way.

However, admiring your advocating skills and your sense of humor doesn't mean I agree with the arguments you put forth, and I think that's a good thing for both of us. Also I realize now that your idea with the Boxing Ring was a very good one, as opposed to using a normal thread where all kind of people could have jumped in and made a mess out of our debate. To be honest, there couldn't be a better setup for this dispute to take place. I love it.

I'm only going to reply in one post, so we can resume the one-punch-at-a-time format, okay?

For this round I want to suggest a thought experiment which I want you to take very seriously. I think it will help you understand a little more where the other one is coming from. I already understand how you think (because I've done the experiment myself), so I don't have to take part in it this time. Also, because the experiment is quite long, I will not address your previous post now. I'll do it in a different post after we're done with the "experiment." I truly believe it is more relevant than any other arguments I might bring at this point. Again, please take it seriously.
So, here goes nothing:

You know the feeling when you are convinced of something and you argue with someone who is convinced of the exact opposite and you realize that you can't possibly be both right, and even more, that you are right and they are wrong and that they can't seem to get this into their thick skull? And you have a feeling of great frustration, and wonder, "Why can't these people see things the way they are? The way I see them!" Okay, now stop right there! Freeze the frame and imagine you could take yourself out of your own body and mind and put whatever you've taken out into the other guy's body and mind. This is not an easy thought experiment to do, but bear with me for a second. So, for the duration of a paused frame, you are the other guy. You see things through his eyes now and have the opportunity to answer your question: "Why can't this guy see things the way they are? The way I see them!" And when you realize the truth, a chill passes through your body: "He does! He sees things the way they are!" You pause the paused frame a bit confused and go back to your own mind and body to clarify the situation. For the split second you were "him" you had the uncomfortable feeling that the reality you saw (his reality) was not the same as yours (the correct one) but while you were him it didn't feel like there was something wrong with it, that is wasn't the correct one. That raises your suspicions enough to say, "Okay, let me do it again to make sure." And you do it again and the same thing happens. And you realize there are two completely different realities that contradict one another but are both 100% true. How can that be? Of course there can only be one reality at any given time. God can't possibly exist 100% and not exist 100% at the same time! And you stop for a second in between the two minds and bodies (at which point it becomes a bit difficult to remember which one is yours and which one is the other guy's) and have an epiphany: "When I'm in that body and mind I know 100% there in no God, but when I'm in the other one, I see God. Literally, I see God in that mind." Again, how is that possible?

To put you out of your misery (it's not pleasant to realize there are two perfectly valid 100% correct realities that contradict one another), I'm going to end this thought experiment, and ask you, How do you feel?

Because we are restricted to only see "our reality" and because we never do this thought experiment, we automatically presume our reality is the only one, and automatically, the only true one. Everybody else who doesn't see things the way we do—the way they are!—is just experiencing a delusion! Hello! You wanna do the thought experiment again?

Okay, now what I've just done is not very easy to swallow. If you think it is, you haven't done the experiment properly. Only when you say to yourself (without admitting it to me or anybody else), "I think I know what this guys is saying here," will you have done it properly.

Another way to convince people of the "real" reality (another way to say "yours") is by trying to present it to them. Kinda help them see your reality not through your eyes (that can only be done in the thought experiment, and has zero persuasive value) but through theirs.

This is exactly what I am attempting to do now. I'm trying to help you see my reality through your eyes. I know you don't want to see it because it's wrong (now the you from your reality is talking), but at least try.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, I start with the fact that our realities are both 100% correct. It's not a supposition, it's a fact! You are convinced of your reality 100%, which makes it 100% correct; I am convinced of mine 100%, which makes it 100% correct. "How can we have a combined reality of 200%, then?" you may wonder. "Since yours is 100% correct and mine is 100% correct. One of us has to be wrong." No, we're both right. If we do the thought experiment again—and here is the difficult bit to grasp—I am 100% right when I am me, and 100% when I am you. Similarly, you are 100% right when you are you, and 100% when you are me because neither one of us is lying to himself! "This doesn't make any sense!" Yes, it does, and it doesn't contradict mathematics either. The combined reality at any given time is 100%, because in the thought experiment I can't be me and you at the same time just as you can't be you and me at the same time. So, for any given paused frame during the experiment, I am either me or you, and the reality I perceive for the duration of that frame is 100% correct for whichever I happen to be.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
18-02-2015, 07:45 PM (This post was last modified: 18-02-2015 11:29 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
I glanced over your last post looking for straight answers to my questions and didn’t find one.

I’m afraid I’m losing interest. I had hoped for a tit for tat exchange and I think I have lived up to my end of the bargain. You, of course, can choose not to answer any of my questions but then I can choose not to participate in your thought experiment until then.

This is now the second time my question has gone unanswered. When you are ready to return the favor let me know.

Left in limbo are:

Question #3 FC:
What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?

Question #4 FC:
What are these things that you think the Theory of Evolution can’t account for?


Send me a PM as I won’t be monitoring this debate until you do so.

EDIT: I suppose you can also concede that the Theory of Evolution is sound and true and does NOT require a “helping hand” to quote you. If this is the case then go ahead and concede the point and we shall continue.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
19-02-2015, 07:00 AM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2015 07:17 AM by Job_1207.)
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
(18-02-2015 07:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  I’m afraid I’m losing interest. I had hoped for a tit for tat exchange and I think I have lived up to my end of the bargain. You, of course, can choose not to answer any of my questions but then I can choose not to participate in your thought experiment until then.

I honestly didn't expect this reaction from you, but now, that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. You are right. I have asked you to do something that is uncomfortable for you, which is to put yourself in my shoes. I'm not going to do that again, so forget about my "thought experiment."

I'm going to answer your second question of the post now.

(18-02-2015 07:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Question #4 FC:
What are these things that you think the Theory of Evolution can’t account for?

The things evolution can't account for are (in some kind of chronological order):

(1) The origin of the first living cell, and subsequently the origin of life itself

I know the burden of doing that falls on the shoulders of another branch of science (Abiogenesis), not evolution, but that only shifts the problem from one name to another. Just changing the "department" where the problem can't be solved doesn't solve the problem. ("You guys deal with that! We have other unsolved issues in our department!")

(2) The origin of the Information in the DNA

This is related to the first problem, and there are people a lot more competent than I am who clearly explained this issue much better than I could ever do it. Here's a "sample" that you might find interesting. I hope that's scientific enough for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw

(3) The key transitions

This problem has subcategories:

(3)-A From unicellular to multi-cellular organisms
(3)-B From unisex to male-and-female
(3)-C From water breathing to air breathing
(3)-D From cold blooded to warm blooded
(3)-E From something to plants and from the same something to animals

Or is it, from something to plants and then on to animals? According to the theory that "explains" the great quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere, the first living organisms that appeared in the primordial seas used the gasses from the primordial atmosphere (which was nothing similar to what we have today) and produced oxygen. I watched a documentary a long time ago in which scientists imagined an attempt to create an earthlike atmosphere on Mars, by artificially reenacting (and speeding up hundreds of times) those biochemical processes which allegedly produced the earth's atmosphere. Of course they could do that, because it didn't cost them anything. Imagination comes with the package; you don't have to pay extra for it.

(3)-F From one "classless" class of animals to the distinct classes we have today: insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

You can arrange those whichever way you want on the evolutionary spiral—now it's not even a tree anymore, like Darwin first proposed, but a spiral—and you still won't be able to find a non-forced or non-contorted transition from one to the next. Unless, of course, you conveniently conjure one up to fit within the theory.
If I took more time to delve into it, I could find some other key transitions, but I don't think that's necessary. These six are more than enough.

And, finally, the most compelling of all the problems evolution can't account for is:

(4) Animal behavior, which you conveniently call instinct

If you want to continue our debate, I would like to discuss this last one. The reason is quite simple. We can't go back in time to witness the transitions I mentioned in (3), we can't go back in time to witness the amazing process of chemical substances combining and interacting with one another to form the first living cell (1) and (2), but we can look at the animals we have today and study their behavior.

When you are ready to do that, I'm right here waiting to call my "first witness." I have so many animals I can choose from that I don't even know which one to summon first. I think I'll just go with my "instinct." I don't know, it seems to have helped me well in the past.

The ball is in your court now.

My next question is (#4):

Are you ready/willing to go to such an imaginary courtroom where the animals can be "witnesses"? The trial is: "Evolution happened by unguided natural processes!" You are the attorney for the Defense, of course, because you claim it did, and I'll be the Prosecutor because I believe it couldn't have and therefore didn't.


PS. I know the answers evolution proposes for the first three problems I mentioned, so I doubt you can come up with something "spectacular" that I don't know. So (and I'm saying this in a friendly way) don't waste your time trying to answer the first three points. Let's go straight to number (4). If necessary, we can always go back to any of those three points at a later time.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
19-02-2015, 12:45 PM (This post was last modified: 19-02-2015 12:50 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
(19-02-2015 07:00 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  
(18-02-2015 07:45 PM)‘Full Circle Wrote:  ...I can choose not to participate in your thought experiment until then.

I honestly didn't expect this reaction from you, but now, that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. You are right. I have asked you to do something that is uncomfortable for you, which is to put yourself in my shoes. I’m not going to do that again, so forget about my “thought experiment.”

You are projecting your own reasons for my actions instead of reading what I wrote above and in so doing attempting to paint me as “uncomfortable” or unwilling. How disingenuously magnanimous of you.

(19-02-2015 07:00 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  I'm going to answer your second question of the post now.

(18-02-2015 07:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Question #4 FC:
What are these things that you think the Theory of Evolution can’t account for?

The things evolution can't account for are (in some kind of chronological order):

(1) The origin of the first living cell, and subsequently the origin of life itself

I know the burden of doing that falls on the shoulders of another branch of science (Abiogenesis), not evolution, but that only shifts the problem from one name to another. Just changing the "department" where the problem can't be solved doesn't solve the problem. ("You guys deal with that! We have other unsolved issues in our department!”)

Why don’t we just jump straight to the origin of the Universe? Dodgy

"Science is investigating how life started (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but these considerations are not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified...”
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/mi...eory.shtml

"Modern abiogenesis hypotheses are based largely on the same principles as the Oparin-Haldane theory and the Miller-Urey experiment. There are, however, subtle differences between the several models that have been set forth to explain the progression from abiogenic molecule to living organism, and explanations differ as to whether complex organic molecules first became self-replicating entities lacking metabolic functions or first became metabolizing protocells that then developed the ability to self-replicate.” http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...biogenesis

(19-02-2015 07:00 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  (2) The origin of the Information in the DNA

This is related to the first problem, and there are people a lot more competent than I am who clearly explained this issue much better than I could ever do it. Here's a "sample" that you might find interesting. I hope that's scientific enough for you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw

In all modern organisms, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA) are necessary to build proteins, and proteins are necessary to build nucleic acids, some kinds of RNA can catalyze chemical reactions — and that means that RNA can both store genetic information and cause the chemical reactions necessary to copy itself. Nucleic acids (and specifically, RNA) came first — and later on, life switched to DNA-based inheritance.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...gins.shtml

So current science has the “smoking gun” if you will, and the investigation continues for how and where life began.

(As for the hour-plus long video, I didn’t watch it. If you notice I have given links and citations WITH a short summary of the point I’m making and where I found the information. I’d appreciate it if you would do the same.)

(19-02-2015 07:00 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  (3) The key transitions

This problem has subcategories:

(3)-A From unicellular to multi-cellular organisms
(3)-B From unisex to male-and-female
(3)-C From water breathing to air breathing
(3)-D From cold blooded to warm blooded
(3)-E From something to plants and from the same something to animals

Or is it, from something to plants and then on to animals? According to the theory that "explains" the great quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere, the first living organisms that appeared in the primordial seas used the gasses from the primordial atmosphere (which was nothing similar to what we have today) and produced oxygen. I watched a documentary a long time ago in which scientists imagined an attempt to create an earthlike atmosphere on Mars, by artificially reenacting (and speeding up hundreds of times) those biochemical processes which allegedly produced the earth's atmosphere. Of course they could do that, because it didn't cost them anything. Imagination comes with the package; you don't have to pay extra for it.

(3)-F From one "classless" class of animals to the distinct classes we have today: insects, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals

You can arrange those whichever way you want on the evolutionary spiral—now it's not even a tree anymore, like Darwin first proposed, but a spiral—and you still won't be able to find a non-forced or non-contorted transition from one to the next. Unless, of course, you conveniently conjure one up to fit within the theory.
If I took more time to delve into it, I could find some other key transitions, but I don't think that's necessary. These six are more than enough.

It would be great if you were to cite where you get your information such as for the assertion that, “evolutionary spiral—now it’s not even a tree anymore, like Darwin first proposed, but a spiral.”

By spiral do you mean this?
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/58....large.jpg
The evolutionary branching process depicted as a phylogenetic tree has been found to be most useful.

And you would be wrong to say that the Theory of Evolution can’t answer any of those “key transitions”. Science has the evidence to thoroughly support evolution.
There are living species TODAY that clearly answer some of these questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper “ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth"

In instances where there are “gaps” in the evidence we know what came before and we know what came after and we hypothesize what would neatly fit into the “gap”. A perfect example of this was where scientists predicted in what fossil formation a transitional animal should be found (Devonian layer) and voila! Sure enough there it was, the Tiktaalik as one example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik “Tiktaalik may be representative of the evolutionary transition from fish to amphibians. It is an example from several lines of ancient sarcopterygian fish developing adaptations to the oxygen-poor shallow-water habitats of its time, which led to the evolution of tetrapods”.

One of the recurring themes used to argue against evolution, as you are doing now, is that there are missing pieces in the evidence. Life has been present for 3.5 billion years, not all species have left a fossil record and those that have have been scattered by shifting tectonic plates from what today is Mongolia to Nova Scotia, Pakistan to Argentina. The great thing about what has been found is that it paints a very cohesive picture of what evolutionary changes life forms have undergone. Paleontologists continue to dig and biologists continue to put the pieces together. So far only evidence for Natural processes have been found. If you know of any non-natural or supernatural evidence please provide a link or citation.

You now also throw in an aside for how atmospheric conditions to support life “allegedly” may have arisen. What is the point you’re trying to make? That today’s atmosphere can’t be Naturally explained? Or is it that life could not have flourished in such conditions? You would be wrong on both counts.
The original atmosphere may have been similar to the composition of the solar nebula and close to the present composition of the Gas Giant planets, though this depends on the details of how the planets condensed from the solar nebula. That atmosphere was lost to space, and replaced by compounds outgassed from the crust or (in some more recent theories) much of the atmosphere may have come instead from the impacts of comets and other planetesimals rich in volatile materials.
The oxygen so characteristic of our atmosphere was almost all produced by plants (cyanobacteria or, more colloquially, blue-green algae). Thus, the present composition of the atmosphere is 79% nitrogen, 20% oxygen, and 1% other gases. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/...phere.html
Hard to give any weight to how this tidbit of information helps discredit Evolutionary Theory without citation. Oh, and nice touch with the non-sequitor pithy remark at the end, because as everyone knows snark always trumps data.

Well I see you are empahatically using the Shotgun Approach (Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them), that is if you throw enough things out in an attempt to undermine a well supported scientific fact some of it might stick. Apparently you are intent on piling on whatever you can think of to obfuscate answering my question “What are these things that you think the Theory of Evolution can’t account for?” in regards to beaks and other evolved body parts that, by the way, you have given no testable, refutable, alternative explanation.

(19-02-2015 07:00 AM)‘Job_1207’ Wrote:  And, finally, the most compelling of all the problems evolution can't account for is:

(4) Animal behavior, which you conveniently call instinct

Now you’re just showing me that you don’t even remember that you were the one to ask me what the fucking word meant to me. How convenient indeed. Facepalm
Pro-tip: If you’re going to use snark don’t let it bite you in the ass.

(16-02-2015 03:45 PM)Job_1207 Wrote:  Watching wildlife documentaries, you hear the word animal "instinct" over and over again. What does it mean?

(19-02-2015 07:00 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  If you want to continue our debate, I would like to discuss this last one. The reason is quite simple. We can't go back in time to witness the transitions I mentioned in (3), we can't go back in time to witness the amazing process of chemical substances combining and interacting with one another to form the first living cell (1) and (2), but we can look at the animals we have today and study their behavior.

When you are ready to do that, I'm right here waiting to call my "first witness." I have so many animals I can choose from that I don't even know which one to summon first. I think I'll just go with my "instinct." I don't know, it seems to have helped me well in the past.

The ball is in your court now.

So it appears to me that so far you are arguing from the positions of:

1) Argument from (personal) incredulity – I cannot imagine or explain how this could be true, therefore it must be false
2) Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Not unexpected, carry on.

Anyway, this third question you have left unanswered.

Question #3 FC:
What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?


I’d like for you to answer this question before we proceed.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
20-02-2015, 07:25 AM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2015 07:32 AM by Job_1207.)
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
I can sense that the tone of our discussion is beginning to become hostile, and I don't want to encourage that. Let's stay friends or, if we're not friends, at least let's not turn into enemies.

This time I'll start by answering the question I owed you:

(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Question #3 FC:
What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?

You brought up the beak of the finch as an example of adaptation to the environment. You obviously used it an illustration of how natural selection works, and argued that natural selection can blindly select the best beak, which at the end of the process looks designed.
In reply, I simply stated that while natural selection can do that (select the best beak), it cannot account for the beak itself. My argument ended there because I wasn't trying to explain how the beak appeared in the first place.
If you want to extend the argument and ask me, "How do you account for the beak?" that's a totally different discussion, and my inability to produce a satisfactory explanation is not going to refute my argument. I didn't say, "I know how the beak appeared, and it was not through natural selection." I said, "Natural selection can explain the improvement of an already existing beak, but cannot account for the beak itself."
The point is not that I have the answer for the existence of the beak, but that I know the answer (whatever it may be) is not natural selection. Otherwise the concept of natural selection becomes a nonsensical regression: it started working its magic only after the beak was there (something to select!), but at the same time it must have been in effect before the beak was produced in order to produce it! In other words, the existence of the beak allowed natural selection to emerge as a valid biological process which, in turn (retroactively!), produced the beak. A dog chasing its tail would catch it sooner than we could get out of this nonsensical regression.
So we have to find something else that can explain the beak since natural selection can't do that.

On to your next point.

(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  (As for the hour-plus long video, I didn’t watch it. If you notice I have given links and citations WITH a short summary of the point I’m making and where I found the information. I’d appreciate it if you would do the same.)

I apologize for the fact that the video I sent you is long. The field of genetics and biochemistry is not easy to explain in five-minute videos. If you really claim that you want to know the truth (and not that you already know it and don't want to be bothered by people who tell you you might be wrong!), I can see no excuse you could bring for not watching that video. I spent almost an hour listening to a stupid radio show (listening, with no images!) where some guys pretended they were intelligent by discovering the coin had two sides, and you can't watch a video explaining the intricacies of the DNA by an expert in the field of biochemistry? What does that tell us about your willingness to accept facts that may contradict your conviction?

(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  There are living species TODAY that clearly answer some of these questions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper “ability to breathe through their skin and the lining of their mouth"

Funny you should mention the mudskipper in your post as an animal that supports evolution. It was the very first animal I was going to summon to the stand in our imaginary trial (where animals were supposed to be witnesses against evolution). So technically, the mudskipper was my witness (or one of my many witnesses), but since you are not willing to go into that courtroom with me, I'm afraid I'll have to cancel the summons and sent the mudskipper back to the beaches of Japan.

(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Well I see you are empahatically using the Shotgun Approach (Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them), that is if you throw enough things out in an attempt to undermine a well supported scientific fact some of it might stick.

I didn't mean to overwhelm you with a "mountain" of evidence. That's barely a spoonful of evidence, actually, compared to the things I left out of the list. You asked me, "What are the things that you think evolution can't explain," and I simply listed 4 of the many things evolution doesn't have answers for. It offers hypotheses for those difficult problems, and they are very well presented, but at the end of the day they will remain nothing more than what they are: proposed hypotheses. Some people believe them (changing the name to "proven theory"), most people take them for granted because they are too ignorant to think for themselves, but others have reservations. As I said at the end of my post, we can discuss those problems (one at a time, of course) if you consider it necessary. However—and this leads me to the last part of your post—I prefer to discuss problem (4) first.

(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Now you’re just showing me that you don’t even remember that you were the one to ask me what the fucking word (animal instinct) meant to me. How convenient indeed. Facepalm

I'm afraid you have misunderstood why I want to discuss animal instinct. You say, "But we have already discussed it, remember?" Well, we actually didn't. We only established it as a concept and gave it a definition. That's all we did. I don't remember discussing it. Or, do you want to tell me that giving it a name and a short definition is enough to put it on the "solved problems" list? I hope not. So I suggest rolling up our sleeves (as Mr. Dawkins likes to say) and getting busy with this animal instinct we so easily take for granted. And the conclusion we might draw from studying the behavior of animals is going to fall neither under the Argument from (personal) incredulity nor under the Argument from ignorance. On the contrary!

I don't have a new question. I'm still waiting for an answer to my previous one: Are you ready/willing to go to such an imaginary courtroom where the animals can be "witnesses"? The trial is: "Evolution happened by unguided natural processes!" You are the attorney for the Defense, of course, because you claim it did, and I'll be the Prosecutor because I believe it couldn't have and therefore didn't.

PS. A simple yes or no answer will do.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
20-02-2015, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: 20-02-2015 08:29 PM by Full Circle.)
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
(20-02-2015 07:25 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  The point is not that I have the answer for the existence of the beak, but that I know the answer (whatever it may be) is not natural selection


This right here is why I’m going to put an end to this “discussion”. The amount of hubris displayed in this sentence alone in the face of any and all scientific evidence is mindboggling.

I was going to continue citing scientific articles and videos that show why evolution is true (btw natural selection is only one component). But now I realize that this is a waste of my time because you so casually dismiss a mountain of scientific evidence that corroborates our understanding of Evolution with the assertion that YOU Job_1207 KNOW is not natural selection WITHOUT ONE SHRED OF PROOF OR AN ALTERNATE ANSWER THAT CAN BE OBSERVED, TESTED AND FALSIFIED! Facepalm


(20-02-2015 07:25 AM)Job_1207 Wrote:  I can sense that the tone of our discussion is beginning to become hostile, and I don't want to encourage that. Let’s stay friends or, if we’re not friends, at least let’s not turn into enemies.

I am all for civil discourse but I reserve the right forcefully point out mischaracterizations, misrepresentations of my position and outright lies.

(20-02-2015 07:25 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  This time I'll start by answering the question I owed you:

(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Question #3 FC:
What do you propose accounts or is the genesis for “the beak itself” (or any of the other body parts you mentioned) before evolution and natural selection can do their “magic”?

You brought up the beak of the finch as an example of adaptation to the environment. You obviously used it an illustration of how natural selection works, and argued that natural selection can blindly select the best beak, which at the end of the process looks designed.
In reply, I simply stated that while natural selection can do that (select the best beak), it cannot account for the beak itself. My argument ended there because I wasn't trying to explain how the beak appeared in the first place.
If you want to extend the argument and ask me, "How do you account for the beak?" that's a totally different discussion, and my inability to produce a satisfactory explanation is not going to refute my argument. I didn’t say, “I know how the beak appeared, and it was not through natural selection."
I said, “Natural selection can explain the improvement of an already existing beak, but cannot account for the beak itself.”
The point is not that I have the answer for the existence of the beak, but that I know the answer (whatever it may be) is not natural selection


I kindly asked for citations to support your argument. In this particular case I think it would be very helpful to your position to cite why you think its not “natural selection”. After all if I used an argument without any supporting evidence I would suspect you would call me on it.

So if “you know” it’s not “natural selection” but cannot “produce a satisfactory explanation” then I propose IT DOES refute your assertion, whatever that may be since you haven’t presented an alternative.

At the very least it makes your intuitive “I know” to be meaningless. So in this case I’m going to quote your own signature line and hold you to it = “It doesn’t matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!”

For any of you reading this far science has evidence of how fish gills became jaws and jaws became beaks if you care to look.

(20-02-2015 07:25 AM)‘Job_1207’ pid=‘739058 Wrote:
Otherwise the concept of natural selection becomes a nonsensical regression: it started working its magic only after the beak was there (something to select!), but at the same time it must have been in effect before the beak was produced in order to produce it! In other words, the existence of the beak allowed natural selection to emerge as a valid biological process which, in turn (retroactively!), produced the beak. A dog chasing its tail would catch it sooner than we could get out of this nonsensical regression.
So we have to find something else that can explain the beak since natural selection can’t do that.

The following refutes your unsupported assertion.
http://www.sci-news.com/genetics/science...02344.html “All toothless vertebrates are descended from an ancestor with enamel-capped teeth. In the case of birds, it is theropod dinosaurs. Modern birds use a horny beak instead of teeth, and part of their digestive tract to grind up and process food.”
and
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...arrot-fish “characteristic birdlike beak formed by the fused teeth of the jaws”
and
http://biogeodb.stri.si.edu/caribbean/en...ecies/3911 Transitionary LIVING species “teeth not fused into a beak, free, with flattened pointed tips”
and
http://phys.org/news/2013-12-functional-...beaks.html "Co-author Lawrence Witmer, Chang Professor of Paleontology at the Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine said: "Beaks evolved several times during the transitions from dinosaurs to modern birds, usually accompanied by the partial or complete loss of teeth and our study now shows that keratin-covered beaks represent a functional innovation during dinosaur evolution."
and
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/...-smile.htm “The study, recently published in the journal Science, details how the absence of teeth, called edentulism, occurred in one common bird ancestor more than 100 million years ago."
and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFLJm35reHs A clear and concise series of videos explaining how primitive fish gills evolved into jaws and then beaks.
and, and ,and

I could continue to cite and find support for my position of the Theory of Evolution however I am convinced that there is no point discussing eyes, ears, lungs, wings, scales or anything else because you have told me everything I need to know with regards to you position,
“The point is not that I have the answer for the existence of the FILL IN THE BLANK, but that I know the answer (whatever it may be) is not natural selection.


(20-02-2015 07:25 AM)‘Job_1207’ pid=‘739058’ Wrote:On to your next point.

(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  (As for the hour-plus long video, I didn’t watch it. If you notice I have given links and citations WITH a short summary of the point I’m making and where I found the information. I’d appreciate it if you would do the same.)

I apologize for the fact that the video I sent you is long. The field of genetics and biochemistry is not easy to explain in five-minute videos. If you really claim that you want to know the truth (and not that you already know it and don't want to be bothered by people who tell you you might be wrong!), I can see no excuse you could bring for not watching that video. I spent almost an hour listening to a stupid radio show (listening, with no images!) where some guys pretended they were intelligent by discovering the coin had two sides, and you can't watch a video explaining the intricacies of the DNA by an expert in the field of biochemistry? What does that tell us about your willingness to accept facts that may contradict your conviction?

Your video link (the only link so far) is a presentation by Stephen C. Meyer. Apparently Meyer, a supporter of ID, believes “Junk DNA” validates his ID stance.
I went to the National Human Genome Research Institute site http://www.genome.gov/search.cfm and found NOT ONE REFERENCE to Meyer and NOT ONE PAPER written by Stephen C. Meyer.

I then read what others had to say about Meyer’s works, these tidbits caught my eye:

"Most absurd of all is the book’s stance on knowledge: if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science—and there is plenty about the Cambrian, and the universe, that cannot—then we should assume it is fundamentally beyond explanation, and therefore the work of a supreme deity.

But do not underestimate “Darwin’s Doubt”: it is a masterwork of pseudoscience. ~ Gareth Cook 2005 Pulitzer Prize winner.
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/d...wins-doubt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gareth_Cook

Reminds me of someone Consider

and

“As I read through Meyer’s book, though, in case after case I see misunderstandings, superficial treatment of key issues which are devastating to his thesis once understood, and complete or near-complete omission of information that any non-expert reader would need to have to make an accurate assessment of Meyer’s arguments.” ~ Nick Matzke
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/06/...ess-2.html a devastating account of Meyer’s work including references and citations for every single rebuttal.


‘Job_1207’ pid=‘739058’ dateline=‘1424438752 Wrote:
(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Well I see you are empahatically using the Shotgun Approach (Shotgun argumentation – the arguer offers such a large number of arguments for their position that the opponent can’t possibly respond to all of them), that is if you throw enough things out in an attempt to undermine a well supported scientific fact some of it might stick.

I didn't mean to overwhelm you with a "mountain" of evidence. That’s barely a spoonful of evidence,

ASSERTION =/= EVIDENCE
So far you have provided ZERO support by way of citation for anything you have said other than Meyer who has no support in the real scientific world.

‘Job_1207’ pid=‘739058’ dateline=‘1424438752 Wrote:actually, compared to the things I left out of the list. You asked me, "What are the things that you think evolution can't explain," and I simply listed 4 of the many things evolution doesn't have answers for. It offers hypotheses for those difficult problems, and they are very well presented, but at the end of the day they will remain nothing more than what they are: proposed hypotheses. Some people believe them (changing the name to "proven theory"), most people take them for granted because they are too ignorant to think for themselves, but others have reservations. As I said at the end of my post, we can discuss those problems (one at a time, of course) if you consider it necessary. However—and this leads me to the last part of your post—I prefer to discuss problem (4) first.

“because they are too ignorant to think for themselves”. The irony burns.

‘Job_1207’ pid=‘739058’ dateline=‘1424438752’ Wrote:
(19-02-2015 12:45 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Now you’re just showing me that you don’t even remember that you were the one to ask me what the fucking word (animal instinct) meant to me. How convenient indeed. Facepalm

I'm afraid you have misunderstood why I want to discuss animal instinct. You say, “But we have already discussed it, remember?"

Show me where I said that. Once again you don’t seem to be able to comprehend or follow the conversation. I don’t know if this is on purpose or you really are having trouble understanding what is written. GO BACK AND READ MY POSTS, YOU WON’T FIND I SAID THAT ANYWHERE. Another lie.

(20-02-2015 07:25 AM)‘Job_1207’ pid=‘739058 Wrote:
Well, we actually didn’t. We only established it as a concept and gave it a definition. That's all we did. I don't remember discussing it. Or, do you want to tell me that giving it a name and a short definition is enough to put it on the "solved problems" list? I hope not. So I suggest rolling up our sleeves (as Mr. Dawkins likes to say) and getting busy with this animal instinct we so easily take for granted. And the conclusion we might draw from studying the behavior of animals is going to fall neither under the Argument from (personal) incredulity nor under the Argument from ignorance. On the contrary!

I don't have a new question. I'm still waiting for an answer to my previous one: Are you ready/willing to go to such an imaginary courtroom where the animals can be "witnesses"? The trial is: "Evolution happened by unguided natural processes!" You are the attorney for the Defense, of course, because you claim it did, and I'll be the Prosecutor because I believe it couldn't have and therefore didn't.

PS. A simple yes or no answer will do.

(20-02-2015 07:25 AM)‘Job_1207 Wrote:  The point is not that I have the answer for the existence of the beak, but that I know the answer (whatever it may be) is not natural selection

Seriously? I’m done here.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
[+] 3 users Like Full Circle's post
21-02-2015, 02:05 AM
RE: Evolution and Probability: Job_1207 & Full Circle
(20-02-2015 07:53 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Seriously? I’m done here.

Okay.

It doesn't matter what I believe; all that matters is what I can prove!
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: