Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[shunyadragon]

I've certainly answered this one before a few times, maybe just for people who were asking nicely!

Like most, my money would be on God, hardly a controversial position.. but not the only one.

I do not believe you have responded specifically, and this response is vague and problematic.

Putting your money on God confirms to me you are a Theist.

Dawkins considers alien intelligence a possibility (not where his money is obviously), & atheist Hoyle considered a 'super intellect'

False, and I have specifically cited Dawkins in the past where he emphatically, and without question denies this possibility. Theists often refer to an anecdotal sarcastic response by Dawkins in an interview, which he clarified since, and makes it clear.

If one attributes Intelligent Design to the possibility of Aliens they are just kicking the can down the road to: 'Who 'Intelligently Designed' the aliens.

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

— Fred Hoyle[29]

Fred Hoyle is ancient history and not current science.

 

[shunyadragon]

as a reminder, any comments including ad hominem attacks are ignored, just to save you wasting your own time- I am always happy to answer any substantive questions

I will take this as a an inability to respond coherently, and like @Hockeycowboy a lack of knowledge. lack of current references, and qualifications to even comment on the nature of the geologic evidence concerning the Cambrian Revolution.

The silence is telling of the inability to coherently respond.

Your continuous reliance of fallacious argument, misrepresentation of respected scientists like Dawkins, and use of scientific misinformation used in classic fundamentalist Christian arguments does not earn you respect, and encourages ridicule, which you justly earn. If you come up with legitimate science and sound arguments fine, but I am still waiting.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do not believe you have responded specifically, and this response is vague and problematic.

Putting your money on God confirms to me your are a Theist.



False, and I have specifically cited Dawkins in the past where he emphatically, and without question denies this possibility. Theists often refer to an anecdotal sarcastic response by Dawkins in an interview, which he clarified since, and makes it clear.

If one attributes Intelligent Design to the possibility of Aliens they are just kicking the can down the road to: 'Who 'Intelligently Designed' the aliens.



Fred Hoyle is ancient history and not current science.

He acknowledges that we may find the fingerprints of ID in life, of course many would argue we already have. Obviously he still believes creation was ultimately naturalistic

But likewise proposing a naturalistic mechanism capable of creating this universe, is kicking the can down the road 'what natural mechanism created that'? same apparent paradox- only with the added problem of prohibiting any true creative capacity for it's creations

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I will take this as a an inability to respond coherently, and like @Hockeycowboy a lack of knowledge. lack of current references, and qualifications to even comment on the nature of the geologic evidence concerning the Cambrian Revolution.

The silence is telling of the inability to coherently respond.

simply ask the question while refraining from insults, if at all possible, this will save you time, there are plenty other people here who can do this

 

[shunyadragon]

He acknowledges that we may find the fingerprints of ID in life, of course many would argue we already have. Obviously he still believes creation was ultimately naturalistic

But likewise proposing a naturalistic mechanism capable of creating this universe, is kicking the can down the road 'what natural mechanism created that'? same apparent paradox- only with the added problem of prohibiting any true creative capacity for it's creations

Naturalist arguments do not propose a naturalist Creation of the universe, because science proposes a natural explanation for the nature of our physical existence and the natural formation of our universe and all possible universes based on the evidence. At present, like the science of evolution, there is no other scientific hypothesis that fits the evidence other than than a natural explanation.

By the way, soon to follow a thread on the evidence recently found on the existence of earlier universes,

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Naturalist arguments do not propose a naturalist Creation of the universe, because science proposes a natural explanation for the nature of our physical existence and the natural formation of our universe and all possible universes based on the evidence. At present, like the science of evolution, there is no other scientific hypothesis that fits the evidence other than than a natural explanation.

By the way, soon to follow a thread on the evidence recently found on the existence of earlier universes,

Therein lies the paradox unique to naturalism.. that the laws of nature can all ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

 

[Audie]

Therein lies the paradox unique to naturalism.. that the laws of nature can all ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

I see some words there but-
What does any of that actually mean?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I see some words there but-
What does any of that actually mean?

laws writing themselves. it's a paradox.

 

[Audie]

Neither is the connection between the theory of gravity and throwing people off of tall buildings. All they were doing is misapplying a theory to try and justify their already existent xenophobia and racism. Evolution no more inspires eugenics than the theory of gravity inspires us to throw people off of tall buildings.

Yeah, well, Hitler learned from Darwin that he should kill Jews, so there.

 

[Audie]

its a paradox.

I saw the word paradox, you know. And I speak English.

If you cant explain what you wrote, fine. it didnt look to me as if it made any sense, so I can hardly expect you to explain it.

You should btw, kind of look up what "ad hom" means.

 

[Audie]

I've certainly answered this one before a few times, maybe just for people who were asking nicely!

Like most, my money would be on God, hardly a controversial position.. but not the only one

Dawkins considers alien intelligence a possibility (not where his money is obviously), & atheist Hoyle considered a 'super intellect'

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

— Fred Hoyle[29]


It is also possible to refute Darwinism without invoking intelligent design though, just as the Big Bang and quantum mechanics did not force people to accept the theistic implications some complained of- the point is similarly, that life depends on a vast amount of preexisting specified information to determine how, when and where it developed- not a handful of immutable laws and random chance. So one can pencil in the multiverse as the 'designer' of this information, if they prefer to avoid intelligent agency for some reason.

But if the only remaining alternative to ID is 'an infinite probability machine'- that would also apply to the creation of a functioning watch. So it is as good a test as any, for an object that probably was intelligently designed

If you can refute ToE* by all means do so and get it over with. Collect your Nobel, and change the world.

Go ahead.


*"Darwinism"is a very 19th century way of speaking, dont you think?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you can refute ToE* by all means do so and get it over with. Collect your Nobel, and change the world.

Go ahead.

well science is getting there, not sure there's an academic prize in though!

Did Lemaitre ever get a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time? it has to appeal to the vagaries of academic fashion for that

But I think he was probably far more satisfied with finding the truth than winning the trophy!

*"Darwinism"is a very 19th century way of speaking, dont you think?

for a 19th C way of thinking..

I saw the word paradox, you know. And I speak English.

If you cant explain what you wrote, fine. it didnt look to me as if it made any sense, so I can hardly expect you to explain it.

You should btw, kind of look up what "ad hom" means.

sorry, posted before I finished writing

 

[Audie]

well science is getting there, not sure there's an academic prize in though!

Did Lemaitre ever get a Nobel prize for arguably the greatest scientific discovery of all time? it has to appeal to the vagaries of academic fashion for that

But I think he was probably far more satisfied with finding the truth than winning the trophy!



for a 19th C way of thinking..



sorry, posted before I finished writing

I see your personal opinions.

But since that is what you offer, how about your opinion on this-

Why is it that -if ToE is wrong-nobody can demonstrate that?
If it is wrong, should it not be massively wrong, top to bottom, all of it?

Why is all relevant data consistent with the theory?

As for prize, btw, if someone could show that ToE was wrong, you'd not have to
argue whether it was the greatest discovery of all time, and would result in a scientific revolution of incalculable magnitude, in all the hard sciences.*

So, yah, there would be some recognition for that.

*not to mention the religious revival that would sweep the planet

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I see your personal opinions.

But since that is what you offer, how about your opinion on this-

Why is it that -if ToE is wrong-nobody can demonstrate that?
If it is wrong, should it not be massively wrong, top to bottom, all of it?

can you demonstrate UFOs are wrong? rather the burden of proof is to show they are real- yes?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Nobody can demonstrate a single cell morphing into a human through purely random copying errors

we can demonstrate that the fossil record does not reflect what the theory predicted, that lab experiments cannot reproduce macro evolution, nor can computer models even simulate it.

But we can demonstrate one solution for some very tricky problems- a method by which hierarchical digital information systems can be originated and made to produce predetermined emergent properties, and that is through creative intelligence.

Not to say that it is utterly impossible for naturalistic mechanisms to do likewise, but extraordinary claims again..

Why is all relevant data consistent with the theory?

as above, it is all increasingly consistent with the theory being fundamentally wrong

As for prize, btw, if someone could show that ToE was wrong, you'd not have to
argue whether it was the greatest discovery of all time, and would result in a scientific revolution of incalculable magnitude, in all the hard sciences.*

So, yah, there would be some recognition for that.

*not to mention the religious revival that would sweep the planet

Lemaitre was on his death bed by the time the BB was getting broadly accepted

As Planck said, science progresses one funeral at a time, i.e. scientists are not persuaded by any amount of evidence from such entrenched ideas, (the Hoyle's and Dawkins' of academia) you have to wait for a new generation to grow up that is not explicitly opposed to what new evidence shows. Most of the most fatal flaws in ToE have been brought to light in just the last couple of decades.

Did the BB sweep the planet with a religious revival? Of course not- all the implications for a creator that were bitterly complained about, mysteriously and utterly vanished from academia once the theory was established beyond reasonable doubt. how strange!

Similarly Darwin's ToE will be discussed by scientists like Piltdown man, canals or mars, phrenology and global cooling- 'ohh we never really took that seriously anyway!'

 

[ArtieE]

Therein lies the paradox unique to naturalism.. that the laws of nature can all ultimately be accounted for by... those very same laws.

And theists have a god they can't account for at all.

 

[ArtieE]

Yeah, well, Hitler learned from Darwin that he should kill Jews, so there.

No, he was a Christian and we all know the attitude Christians have had against Jews for thousands of years.
Christianity and antisemitism - Wikipedia
Christians were killing Jews long before Darwin.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

as above, if you understand why you can never write another software application, by randomly tweaking the text options in the boxes above- you understand, in principle at least, why you cannot automatically extrapolate a capacity for variation into a design mechanism- particularly a design mechanism for that very capacity you are using to make the changes!

That's the analogy fallacy. DNA isn't computer software so the argument falls on its face.

So one problem is the hierarchy in the information system, the other is simply the improbability of producing a significantly superior design by chance v the overwhelming odds in favor of chnages being significantly deleterious.

Now you are talking about a probability but I don't see any maths. Where are the maths?

so it's not just a light sensitive spot.

As far as light detection goes, yes it is just a light sensitive spot. In Euglena there is no aperature, no lens, and no central nervous system. Eyes are not irreducibly complex.

"In the Articulata we can commence a series with an optic nerve merely coated with pigment, and without any other mechanism; and from this low stage, numerous gradations of structure, branching off in two fundamentally different lines, can be shown to exist, until we reach a moderately high stage of perfection. In certain crustaceans, for instance, there is a double cornea, the inner one divided into facets, within each of which there is a lens shaped swelling. In other crustaceans the transparent cones which are coated by pigment, and which properly act only by excluding lateral pencils of light, are convex at their upper ends and must act by convergence; and at their lower ends there seems to be an imperfect vitreous substance. With these facts, here far too briefly and imperfectly given, which show that there is much graduated diversity in the eyes of living crustaceans, and bearing in mind how small the number of living animals is in proportion to those which have become extinct, I can see no very great difficulty (not more than in the case of many other structures) in believing that natural selection has converted the simple apparatus of an optic nerve merely coated with pigment and invested by transparent membrane, into an optical instrument as perfect as is possessed by any member of the great Articulate class."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

without also having some sort of optic nerve, a way to gather, transmit, process the information in a way that can produce a significantly advantageous result, in this case halting the flagellar motor... you don't have a fully functioning eye. All of these things have to work in tandem

No, they don't. There are plenty of single celled organisms without eyes that have functioning flagella.

^ all this the result of a single instance of genetic mutation? remembering we are talking about irreducible complexity- how you get to the FIRST simplest possible but functional eye by utterly random copying errors

The eye isn't irreducibly complex.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

No....earlier fossils discovered, such as the Ediacaran, simply don't "fit" to be considered precursors by most biologists.

The larger problem for creationists is the utter lack of modern species in the Cambrian. There aren't even any land animals in the Cambrian. There aren't even any bony fish. How do creationists explain this? No mammals, no reptiles, no amphibians, no trees, no grasses, no birds, no sharks, no octopuses . . . none of the animals or plants that we are familiar with. How do you explain this?

 

[Audie]

can you demonstrate UFOs are wrong? rather the burden of proof is to show they are real- yes?

extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Nobody can demonstrate a single cell morphing into a human through purely random copying errors

we can demonstrate that the fossil record does not reflect what the theory predicted, that lab experiments cannot reproduce macro evolution, nor can computer models even simulate it.

But we can demonstrate one solution for some very tricky problems- a method by which hierarchical digital information systems can be originated and made to produce predetermined emergent properties, and that is through creative intelligence.

Not to say that it is utterly impossible for naturalistic mechanisms to do likewise, but extraordinary claims again..

as above, it is all increasingly consistent with the theory being fundamentally wrong

Lemaitre was on his death bed by the time the BB was getting broadly accepted

As Planck said, science progresses one funeral at a time, i.e. scientists are not persuaded by any amount of evidence from such entrenched ideas, (the Hoyle's and Dawkins' otef academia) you have to wait for a new generation to grow up that is not explicitly opposed to what new evidence shows. Most of the most fatal flaws in ToE have been brought to light in just the last couple of decades.

Did the BB sweep the planet with a religious revival? Of course not- all the implications for a creator that were bitterly complained about, mysteriously and utterly vanished from academia once the theory was established beyond reasonable doubt. how strange!

Similarly Darwin's ToE will be discussed by scientists like Piltdown man, canals or mars, phrenology and global cooling- 'ohh we never really took that seriously anyway!'

Your first sentence goes into the fatal flaws of your opinions.
One does not prove a theory. It is impossible, Cannot prove any
laws in science, either.

There is though, an enormous body of evidence that supports ToE,
and, despite your incorrect notion to the contrary, none of it is contrary.
(see your odd statement about the fossil record, for an ex ample)

Your post is not quite a gish, but it is in the same spirit . As my Mom pointed out, if you dont have a good reason, you will need a lot of reasons.
You have opinions, irrelevancies, phony phacts,

For fony facts you offer Most of the most fatal flaws in ToE have been brought to light

Most of zero is zero. If even one fatal flaw had been found, the theory would have been disproved. Pretending it has been, and offering opinions like that
it is impossible by your understanding and reckoning, is not much of an argument.

If you have one demonstrable fact that is contrary to ToE, offer it.
Otherwise, dont bother. AIG / Discovery institute etc gish does not count.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure of order must be the outcome of intelligent design. No other possibility I have been able to think of...

— Fred Hoyle[29]

That would be an argument from ignorance, which is a logical fallacy.

It is also possible to refute Darwinism without invoking intelligent design though, just as the Big Bang and quantum mechanics did not force people to accept the theistic implications some complained of- the point is similarly, that life depends on a vast amount of preexisting specified information to determine how, when and where it developed- not a handful of immutable laws and random chance. So one can pencil in the multiverse as the 'designer' of this information, if they prefer to avoid intelligent agency for some reason.

You claim that life requires a vast amount of preexisting specified information, yet present no evidence to support the claim.

But if the only remaining alternative to ID is 'an infinite probability machine'- that would also apply to the creation of a functioning watch. So it is as good a test as any, for an object that probably was intelligently designed

Watches don't reproduce, so they aren't a valid analogy.