Can Randomness and Chance cause the Evolution of life?

[shunyadragon]

I think we agree for once, but what fun is that??

No fun, you have a religious agenda, and I have started a thread on the first direct evidence for a preexisting universe,

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

As the universe was once claimed to 'simply exist' by many atheists- but inquiring minds were skeptical- they need an origin

That doesn't mean that we have to make up an origin. "I don't know" is just fine for those who are inquisitive and looking for answers.

 

[shunyadragon]

sticks and stones Audie.. I left high school believing in ToE like everyone else.


only 99%? 100% of paranormal investigators believe in ghosts, and they should know- they're the experts, right?

You were ahead of the game at the time.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Huh. Now me, I take the word of the 99 percent or so of all scientists*, who
find the ToE to be sound. Now, while you consistently refrain from demonstrating even high school level grasp of basic biology, it may be that
you actually know more than any scientist on earth.

None of them know that ToE is false, but it seems you do.

Or not, that does snot seem likely. Do forgive me for my lack of confidence
and not taking your word for it.

*and of course, educated people world wide, scientists or not

You're abusive. Ad Hominem attacks usually are symptomatic of either a weak argument, or an inferiority complex.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're abusive. Ad Hominem attacks usually are symptomatic of either a weak argument, or an inferiority complex.

Or else she is merely making an accurate observation and not making an ad hom at all.

Please, can you tell me where the ad hom was?

 

[shunyadragon]

You're abusive. Ad Hominem attacks usually are symptomatic of either a weak argument, or an inferiority complex.

The problem may also be impatience and frustration with those that attack science, especially the science of evolution with a religious agenda. I find many problems with those that make this argument against evolution to be: (1) Lack of education and qualifications in the sciences related to evolution. (2) Using old sources to present an 'argument from ignorance' that because science does not know therefore . . . (3) Selective citations out of context that misrepresent science and scientists, (4) Generalizations of the philosophy of scientists calling the theories of evolution as an atheist theory or appealing to materialism. (5) Misuse of terminology such as describing the science of evolution as 'not proven and just a theory,' (6) Dishonest representation of some skeptics of the science of evolution as their belief is atheist or agnostic trying to disguise their religious agenda.

None of this does not justify personal attacks, but nonetheless, the fundamentalist Creationists must take responsibility for their just plan terrible arguments, and religious agenda not science,

 

[Audie]

You're abusive. Ad Hominem attacks usually are symptomatic of either a weak argument, or an inferiority complex.

Well, I will agree I was not being polite. My apologies for that,
and I will seek to improve myself.

 

[Sapiens]

...
it just means it works, irreducible complexity just means that if you take away one component it no longer does

Yet there is not one example of irreducible complexity that has held up.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yet there is not one example of irreducible complexity that has held up.

The basic argument does not hold up. If we have a system where removing one part does away with its current function this in no way means that it can't evolve. A modern city can't survive without electricity, yet no one thinks that the very first cities had electricity. At first, a new part can be beneficial to the overall system without being a requirement. Over time, the system evolves in a way that removes parts that aren't needed after the new beneficial part appeared. At this point, the system requires the new beneficial part. There is a clear and obvious possible pathway for all IC systems to evolve.

 

[shunyadragon]

The basic argument does not hold up. If we have a system where removing one part does away with its current function this in no way means that it can't evolve. A modern city can't survive without electricity, yet no one thinks that the very first cities had electricity. At first, a new part can be beneficial to the overall system without being a requirement. Over time, the system evolves in a way that removes parts that aren't needed after the new beneficial part appeared. At this point, the system requires the new beneficial part. There is a clear and obvious possible pathway for all IC systems to evolve.

Confusing. I do not see how this applies. Sort of a Non Sequitur.

Yet there is not one example of irreducible complexity that has held up.

The problem with the claim by Intelligent design advocates is the complexity of some organs are to complex to be a product of natural causes, therefore 'Intelligent Design' must be true. This fails in many aspects including logical fallacies such as 'arguing from ignorance' and inability to 'fallsify the negative.'

At present, nothing has been found in nature has not been found to be adequately explained as caused by natural processes.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Confusing. I do not see how this applies. Sort of a Non Sequitur.

A city may be a good analogy.

At one time cities did not use electricity. Instead, they used gas and coal to light and heat their homes. They used tools that were driven by steam, flowing water, horse, or human power. At one point, electricity was introduced. It was seen as a luxury, but the city would have worked just fine if electricity suddenly disappeared. However, over time cities got rid of these other sources of power and tools to the point that it could no longer function without electricity. It's not as if cities and electricity had to both appear at the same time, as the argument for IC systems goes.

The same could work for biological system. For example, a new protein evolves in the blood clotting cascade that helps increase the rate at one of the steps in the pathway. As time goes on, the other proteins for that step in the clotting cascade acquire mutations which do away with their activity, but since the newly evolved protein is filling the job the nonsense mutations in the old genes are not selected for. At this point, the newly evolved protein is essential in the blood clotting cascade even though it wasn't essential when it first evolved.

The problem with the claim by Intelligent design advocates is the complexity of some organs are to complex to be a product of natural causes, therefore 'Intelligent Design' must be true. This fails in many aspects including logical fallacies such as 'arguing from ignorance' and inability to 'fallsify the negative.'

They claim that since all of the parts in the system have to be present in order for it to function that they had to evolve all at once, which is impossible.

"Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning."--Michael Behe

 

[shunyadragon]

The same could work for biological system. For example, a new protein evolves in the blood clotting cascade that helps increase the rate at one of the steps in the pathway. As time goes on, the other proteins for that step in the clotting cascade acquire mutations which do away with their activity, but since the newly evolved protein is filling the job the nonsense mutations in the old genes are not selected for. At this point, the newly evolved protein is essential in the blood clotting cascade even though it wasn't essential when it first evolved.

They claim that since all of the parts in the system have to be present in order for it to function that they had to evolve all at once, which is impossible.

"Irreducible complexity is just a fancy phrase I use to mean a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning."--Michael Behe

I still consider your analogy not relevant, and concept of 'the removal of any one of the parts' is a meaningless hypothetical..

The problem in the case of natural evolution is not dependent on any one hypothetical part? which may be missing to continue functioning. Over the millennia evolution simple involves what is available, without any concern for what may be hypothetically missing..

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I still consider your analogy not relevant, and concept of 'the removal of any one of the parts' is a meaningless hypothetical..

"The removal of any one part" isn't hypothetical because you can do genetic knockouts and see if you lose function by removing genes. It is also the definition that Behe uses, and he is the one who coined the term.

The problem in the case of natural evolution is not dependent on any one hypothetical part? which may be missing to continue functioning. Over the millennia evolution simple involves what is available, without any concern for what may be hypothetically missing..

There are two prongs to the concept. First, if you remove one part do you lose a specific function? Second, can such a system evolve?

 

[shunyadragon]

"The removal of any one part" isn't hypothetical because you can do genetic knockouts and see if you lose function by removing genes. It is also the definition that Behe uses, and he is the one who coined the term.

. . . Behe has a religious agenda to do any thing he can to justify 'Intelligent Design,'

There are two prongs to the concept. First, if you remove one part do you lose a specific function? Second, can such a system evolve?

Again, again, and again . . .

Evolution does not function on the hypothetical Monday morning quarter backing as what hypothetical could have been missing to question 'How could such a team loose if a player was missing? or as the case may be 'How can such a system evolve is something hypothetically was missing?'

Evolution functions over time based on what is available at the time, and not what could be hypothetically missing. This is a fallacious approach big time!!!!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

. . . Behe has a religious agenda to do any thing he can to justify 'Intelligent Design,'

That is irrelevant to an understanding of the concepts Behe is trying to get across and how they can be tested.

Again, again, and again . . .

Evolution does not function on the hypothetical Monday morning quarter backing as what hypothetical could have been missing to question 'How could such a team loose if a player was missing? or as the case may be 'How can such a system evolve is something hypothetically was missing?'

Evolution functions over time based on what is available at the time, and not what could be hypothetically missing. This is a fallacious approach big time!!!!

I agree. I was just pointing out what Behe was trying to claim.

 

[Yerda]

It is the mind-boggling complexity of DNA and what it accomplishes. And how did it form?

I've always thought seemed surprisingly simple. What do you see as mind-boggling complexity?

I have to echo the famous Antony Flew who was an atheist philosopher before having to accept intelligence as the most reasonable understanding of DNA.

Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

We are not saying a naturalistic origin is impossible but it just doesn't seem like the most reasonable position.

I guess it's a matter of perspective, but the first reproducing organism just has to be anything that reproduces itself. We know that lot of substances can do this.

I've never heard of Flew. Can you refer me to where he says this?

 

[Audie]

I've always thought seemed surprisingly simple. What do you see as mind-boggling complexity?

I guess it's a matter of perspective, but the first reproducing organism just has to be anything that reproduces itself. We know that lot of substances can do this.

I've never heard of Flew. Can you refer me to where he says this?

Look him up. Son of preacher, fell away, came back with a vengeance.
Common story.

No expertise in the field.

The creationists think that is time away gives his religious ideas special significance.

 

[shunyadragon]

Look him up. Son of preacher, fell away, came back with a vengeance.
Common story.

No expertise in the field.

The creationists think that is time away gives his religious ideas special significance.

Actually Anthony Flew did not come all the way back, and he died a Deist, with many questions he felt unanswered,

Correct, he had no scientific background in biochemistry, genetics, nor evolution.

 

[Audie]

Actually Anthony Flew did not come all the way back, and he died a Deist, with many questions he felt unanswered,

Correct, he had no scientific background in biochemistry, genetics, nor evolution.

I stand corrected

 

[shunyadragon]

I stand corrected

Anthony Flew's conversion is very often over stated by overly enthusiastic Christian apologists.