The Skinny On Evilution
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2013, 02:26 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My friend sent me the following this week. Do you not agree?

[/align]**

Evolutionists claim evolution brings us forward. I find this claim odd.

The skinny on evolution:
1) Ever-small changes in biology occur by chance
2) Those animals better suited for survival survive, while others do not
3) This leads to ever increasing complexity of the biological kingdom. Organisms started relatively non-complex, and over time, became more complex.

Easy enough, right?

The first two statements seem reasonable and line up with the observed. The third, however, directly conflicts with the first two! Maybe the third is correct and the other two are wrong! Who knows?

Any engineer, or project manager, or person with a high school degree, can tell you, dear reader, that the more complex something becomes, the more likely it will break. Biologically speaking then, increasing complexity decreases the chances of survival.

An example is in order: take the amoeba and the human. If we were to measure the temperature range that both organisms could survive, we'd see that the ameba wins. If we did the same for oxygen content in the atmosphere, and the amount of sunlight required, the amoeba wins again.

These three axes give us a volume. The volume is then the chances of survival. The bigger the volume, the greater the chances of survival.

One can add as many axes as one likes. The fact remains: simple creatures have a better shot at surviving than complex, if (1) and (2) above are true.

This means that organisms, over time, must become less complex, as the more complex die off on account of the fact that they show less of a chance for survival. If true, this means, likely, that we are becoming dumber, as intelligence takes a hit. For those who dabble in the spiritual, we are becoming then spiritually more base (less complex, less sophisticated).

As a consequence, far from (1) and (2) leading to (3), (1) and (2) lead to the exact opposite of (3)!

The limit to all this evolutionary change over a long time provided (1) and (2) are true is then death of all organisms. This is fine for the dead organism never dies, the ultimate immortality, except for the fact that it is, namely, dead.

Considering the fact that evolutionist demand by their very own argument of chance that we have been evolving for trillions of years, it seems odd that we are still here!

Going back to basics, one then has to question whether or not life is simply a question of chance and change. Murphy's Law argues against it. Common sense won't hear of it. I, for one, choose not to believe the unbelievable. This is my right, I'll do what I want, nobody can stop me - so there!

Furthermore, one also has to question whether or not the biological evidence has been 'forced' (manipulated) to agree with (3). What would happen if we reviewed such evidence with an open mind?

And if (3) were true, the evolutionist must come up with a better theory to explain it.

Entropy.

Problem solved.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 02:26 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 03:45 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My friend sent me the following this week.

More copy-paste? Okay, I'll reply, but just on the off chance that it'll stop some random third-party browser from buying into anything PJ says echoes. Talking to PJ himself is a wasted effort. Besides, it's not like this is HIM talking to US.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Do you not agree?

Past experience says no, but once again being open-minded requires me to sit through whatever specious and flawed junk you're wasting our time with this time. Being fair is SO unfair.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Evolutionists claim evolution brings us forward. I find this claim odd.

It is depressingly common. It is also an incorrect and/or highly outdated characterization of evolutionary science's paradigm. The (usually egocentric) notion of there being a "forward" or a way to move "up" has been absent from serious evolutionary science for the better part of a century. There is no top of the ladder and no up. There is only "does this change promote its own survival and promulgation under prevalent conditions", also known as fitness. Those conditions can change. The change itself can change the conditions. What is "forward" today can be "backwards" tomorrow.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The skinny on evolution:
1) Ever-small changes in biology occur by chance
2) Those animals better suited for survival survive, while others do not
3) This leads to ever increasing complexity of the biological kingdom. Organisms started relatively non-complex, and over time, became more complex.

Easy enough, right?

"Chance" is a lot more complicated than sheer random uniformity (which is a common equivocation made by those more interested in attacking evolution than in pursuing the truth), the changes aren't always small (and, for the record, we don't have a good set of units by which to measure changes to say one is bigger than the other), it is more traits which need to survive than the animals those traits manifest in, and increased complexity, though often manifested, is not guaranteed -- there are bacteria that have been evolving for billions of years that are still pretty not-complex.

Granting that each has been simplified for the sake of brevity and-or later fraud, the statements are essentially correct.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The first two statements seem reasonable and line up with the observed. The third, however, directly conflicts with the first two! Maybe the third is correct and the other two are wrong! Who knows?

Conflicts. Really. I'll read on, but I'm setting my phaser to "skeptical". ... oh, wait, it was already set there. Hmm. Carry on, but I reserve the right to stencil in a "sarcastic" setting.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Any engineer, or project manager, or person with a high school degree, can tell you, dear reader, that the more complex something becomes, the more likely it will break. Biologically speaking then, increasing complexity decreases the chances of survival.

*stencil-stencil* This is, of course, why a modern engineers and product managers prefer to design a car that is made of a solid block of stone rather than thousands of intricate parts prone to breakage, corrosion, small furry animals getting in under the hood, and people with high school degrees who think they can read the owner's manual. Because durability (rather than the ability to function or reproduce itself, or convince others to reproduce it) is the only trait that matters.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  An example is in order: take the amoeba and the human. If we were to measure the temperature range that both organisms could survive, we'd see that the ameba wins. If we did the same for oxygen content in the atmosphere, and the amount of sunlight required, the amoeba wins again.

Amoebae are water-borne, and don't usually care much about the atmosphere. They can't really survive well out of water. Advantage humans. If we measure the survival rate of the amoeba in the human's digestive track, the human usually wins. Sometimes, depending on the amoeba, the amoeba wins and the human dies. Armed with this knowledge (and the innate capacity to be armed with this knowledge) as well as the ability to manipulate their environment in ways an amoeba can never dream of (amoebae apparently being incapable of dreaming in the first place), humans can and do produce disinfectants, antibiotics, and water filtration systems. In THIS not-so-far-fetched scenario, humans win, and do so BECAUSE of their complexity.

But it's not really a contest between the two. It's about which population pools survive and prosper in their environments. And both humans and amoebae are doing pretty okay there.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  These three axes give us a volume. The volume is then the chances of survival. The bigger the volume, the greater the chances of survival.

.... wait, what? How is this a multilinear relationship rather than, say, polynomial or logarithmic or exponential or logistic? Let's see your regression analysis! Specify the units! How in the world are we leaping to oh wait it's just another vague mathematical metaphor by someone who doesn't really know what he's talking about GAH there are times that I really hate the figurative lowest common denominator. I'm a mathematician among philistines. Sigh. Okay, just grit my teeth and wait for it to be over.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  One can add as many axes as one likes. The fact remains: simple creatures have a better shot at surviving than complex, if (1) and (2) above are true.

You keep using the word "fact" where I naively expect "unsupported claim". I don't think that word means what you think it means. (EDIT: Oh, and you can't really add a new axis unless it's independent of the old ones. Looking back from the end, this is a central flaw of the argument.)

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  This means that organisms, over time, must become less complex, as the more complex die off on account of the fact that they show less of a chance for survival. If true, this means, likely, that we are becoming dumber, as intelligence takes a hit. For those who dabble in the spiritual, we are becoming then spiritually more base (less complex, less sophisticated).

As a consequence, far from (1) and (2) leading to (3), (1) and (2) lead to the exact opposite of (3)!

IF it were true that simplicity were a survival trait of such magnitude that it always trumped the advantages that complexity might bring, that would follow. IF. Not only have you failed to credibly establish this point, you are now providing a reason not to believe it, in the diminishing of intelligence, which is (usually) a survival trait. Maybe I should just sit back and let you finish your own argument off. (Er, I mean, let your source finish your source's argument off.) I'll leave aside the comments about spirituality as (A) ill-defined, (B) unsupported, and (C) irrelevant to a conversation about evolution.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  The limit to all this evolutionary change over a long time provided (1) and (2) are true is then death of all organisms. This is fine for the dead organism never dies, the ultimate immortality, except for the fact that it is, namely, dead.

... wait, what? It's speaking English but it seems to be saying "this sentence is false". The only coherent thing I can make out here is "every living thing dies", which is true, and "somehow this has to do with evolution", which is quite plausible.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Considering the fact that evolutionist demand by their very own argument of chance that we have been evolving for trillions of years, it seems odd that we are still here!

ARGH! Three orders of magnitude error! Mathematician's urge to kill... RISING!

(Also, it's a different "we" than was there BILLIONS of years ago.)

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Going back to basics, one then has to question whether or not life is simply a question of chance and change. Murphy's Law argues against it. Common sense won't hear of it. I, for one, choose not to believe the unbelievable. This is my right, I'll do what I want, nobody can stop me - so there!

You, my PJ-quoted frenemy, can ignore evolution, but evolution will not ignore you. Murphy's Law is the greatest proving grounds ever and a huge boon for evolution. Common sense hears of it pretty well, but I'm not surprised that you and common sense aren't on the same page. And evolution is quite believable, as evidenced by ALL THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IT. But go ahead and discount evolution. It will discount you as well. There's a REASON that fundie evolution-denying creationists are a dwindling segment of society, and it isn't a Satan-driven conspiracy as many in that segment salve their egos by repeating.

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Furthermore, one also has to question whether or not the biological evidence has been 'forced' (manipulated) to agree with (3). What would happen if we reviewed such evidence with an open mind?

Fortunately, we DO question it. It's called peer review and reproducibility. Doubt that the evidence is genuine? Grab a beaker and do the experiment yourself and see if you don't get the same thing! If you find a discrepancy, PUBLISH! ... oh, wait, that'd require you getting out of your armchair. And, you know, learning at least enough math to understand confidence intervals. And having the intellectual integrity to actually consider that your opponents might be CORRECT, else why even bother looking for evidence that they're right and you're wrong?

(Again, "you" refers to the actual author, and not PJ, who is merely copy-pasting.)

(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And if (3) were true, the evolutionist must come up with a better theory to explain it.

Current theory explains it just fine.

Okay, so to bring it all back, this ENTIRE argument hinges on the idea that complexity is an undesirable trait. That is, in the narrow analysis, true, insofar as if no other traits are altered the more complex organism typically requires more resources to maintain its complexity, and (depending on the nature of that complexity) may sustain more vital injuries. All things being equal, complexity is a disadvantage.

All things are not equal.

Complexity, properly done, brings HUGE advantages. Redundancy. Redundancy arranged in such a way as to address or even leverage the most common mutation vectors. Digestive tracks, rather than just osmosis. The ability to colonize outside of the oceans. Metabolism. The ability to maneuver in our environment or manipulate it, rather than be plankton. Intelligence. This is something that the author was clearly aware of (based on the comments about how intelligence would be diminishing), but outright ignored in what strikes me as a deliberate, fraudulent attempt to con the audience into buying into and spreading this meme.

And it appears that one audience member was gullible enough to do just that.

EDIT: Some spelling corrections, formatting fixes, and word choice improvements. It's an evolving post.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Reltzik's post
14-06-2013, 02:28 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
Also the amoeba and the human is a false example, you can put two equally complex lifeforms in the same environment and get the same kind of results.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 02:48 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
You spelled evolution wrong.

Also, you already confused yourself immediately with how evolution works. It is not developed by chance but a nonrandom process that is propelled by random mechanisms. One is selection where it can be natural or created artificially by humans like banana's for example while the other is mutations(Which are God's apparent mistakes if you believe in such a thing since most of them are harmful) There is no random that happens as you believe. It isn't random and if it were it would not allow us to grow crops how we would have liked if that were true.

You can try to convince yourself as much as you want that it is by chance but the limitations are very clear.

Animals that survive continue to do so and those that do not simply go extinct. Kind of odd for a deity to create thousands of species to literally wipe out more than ninety nine percent of them. People think evolution moves things forward when that is clearly not the case. Evolution draws things better to adaptability and survival.

Some things became complex and succeeded as others did the same but failed. Some things were already well suited for their environment with the adaptations they made thousands upon thousands of years ago.

My problem with this is creationism especially deliberately misuses information(And I know it is creationism because that is the largest argument against evolution although it holds no evidence in favor). It focuses on the God of the Gaps argument to show that God has apparently become so apparent and factual that he needs to rely on information we don't have as of now. They also focus on simply believing rather than actual information. I have very intelligent Christian friends who would strongly disagree with you and believe in Evolution. They aren't the ones who drive me away from their faith but it is those who dumb their God down so much that makes it seem laughable. That make their deity match that of the tooth fairy or Santa Claus and instead of trying to use science they misuse it. While interestingly enough, using all of science benefits to continue on their lives as if science doesn't help or search for truth.

It is fine if you wish to believe what you want without evidence. It is your choice and you are free to do what you want. Just don't believe that what your friend knows holds value.

I do not agree with your friend simply and hope you look closer at Evolution. It isn't evil as you proclaim and although you hold a skewed version of it I hope you at least try to have a clear understanding of it rather than a bias one.

"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind." -John F Kennedy

The way to see by Faith is to shut the eye of Reason.” -Benjamin Franklin

It has been a long time. How have you been?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ShirubaDangan's post
14-06-2013, 02:57 PM (This post was last modified: 14-06-2013 03:02 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Any engineer, or project manager, or person with a high school degree, can tell you, dear reader, that the more complex something becomes, the more likely it will break. Biologically speaking then, increasing complexity decreases the chances of survival.

This made me laugh.

Human beings in general experience the failure of every system built inherited from their ancestors.

Almost any population will have diseases, and death in almost every way possible for that location.

The secret is in the survival of systems that resist failure better than others. In other words it's failing so much that you can over come the what ever it is that is causing the system to fail.




Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2013, 03:14 PM
Re: The Skinny On Evilution
Step 1) start a thread denying evolution
Step 2) act interested in conversation on said thread
Step 3) leave that thread
Step 4) start another thread denying evolution

important note for all steps, equate evolution with Atheism.

Step 5) profit

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
14-06-2013, 03:17 PM
Re: The Skinny On Evilution
Oops, step 5 should read prophet.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
14-06-2013, 03:19 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
"Any engineer, or project manager, or person with a high school degree, can tell you, dear reader, that the more complex something becomes, the more likely it will break. Biologically speaking then, increasing complexity decreases the chances of survival."

Hang on, "dear reader" While I reach deep into my ass for the answers to very complicated questions! Because: Not only do I know that engineers, project managers and high school graduates all have the same knowledge of the complexities of stuff, but they all agree' with me, that complex stuff breaks!

So, single celled organisms are superior to god! My head hurts! I am going to sleep! Someone alert me if god grants PleseJesus a brain!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ameron1963's post
14-06-2013, 03:20 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
Oh, hey, thanks for reminding me BD. Mods? Shouldn't this be in a different forum? The Science forum, maybe?

Oops, no, wait, that forum has a rule against violating copyrights.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
14-06-2013, 03:23 PM
RE: The Skinny On Evilution
(14-06-2013 02:57 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(14-06-2013 12:29 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Any engineer, or project manager, or person with a high school degree, can tell you, dear reader, that the more complex something becomes, the more likely it will break. Biologically speaking then, increasing complexity decreases the chances of survival.

This made me laugh.

Human beings in general experience the failure of every system built inherited from their ancestors.

Almost any population will have diseases, and death in almost every way possible for that location.

The secret is in the survival of systems that resist failure better than others. In other words it's failing so much that you can over come the what ever it is that is causing the system to fail.

What's most hilarious about this one line is that the author made it the lynchpin of the entire argument. Incredibly simplistic. Incredibly prone to breakage.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: