Darwin's Illusion

[Subduction Zone]

Ok what calculation do you suggest instead? How do you know that there is more than one possible beneficial outcome?

If this is not unlikely to happen as I claimed, why is it that it has never been observed?

You seem to be confused

I am presenting this an example of a barrier that would be very hard to overcome with “random variation + natural selection” ………. I am not claiming that such barriers exist------ my cliam is that “we don’t know if these barriers excist” therefore we don’t know if there are always viable paths

I would not know how to do such a calculation so why would I propose doing one? You clearly know even less so the question is why did you attempt something that you are totally unqualified for?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your post is being ignored

Yes, I know. You ignore most of what I write to you. I've been commenting on that for weeks.

I have problems in spotting points of disagreement………… so if I made a claim that you disagree with please quote my cliam and start your reply with “I disagree because….”

I've already responded to that. Let me guess - you ignored it:

"No, Leroy. You want too much, and it still wouldn't be enough. Don't forget that reading comprehension problem, much of which is due to that confirmation bias that you also have refused to acknowledge seeing much less acknowledge or rebut. You still don't understand what parsimony is. Nor what eyewitness testimony is."

The answer is still no, I won't do that. It would be a waste of my time and yours for reasons given. If you need help with written language, you might want to hire a tutor, or somebody to read for you and explain things to you in the way you require. You want others to go back and find your words. Do you not recall what you wrote or what it meant? I do, but not the precise language, just its meaning. So when you say something that means that supernaturalism is a parsimonious hypothesis or complexity barriers to evolution make eye evolution unlikely, you'll have to settle for me paraphrasing like that. That has to be good enough for you. The process you require is just too unwieldy and labor intensive, not to mention would be fruitless anyway.

So no to you dictating how I give my answers. I like lists. I like paraphrasing. And I don't like having to repeat myself or go find your posts to show you what you've said. You'll have to work with that.

I gave you a list of 5 points………….I just what to know which of these points do you think is wrong

Yeah, these:

1 I asked you to develop and explain with detail a spcific hypothesis, and expalin why is it better than “resurection”
2 you answered with a list of hypothesis (none of them where developed, just mentioned)
3 I replied by saying that, you didn’t answered to my demand , I was not asking for a list, I was asking for a well developed and well explained hypotheiss
4 I asked you multiple times to “develop and explain with detail a specific hypothesis, and explain why is it better than “resurection”
5 “You said that you already did”…… (you already provided the hypothesis according to my specifications)………. Which is a lie

I've already covered all of this. You failed to address it then. You don't get second chances any more, Leroy. Since you can't remember what you read my posts, you refuse to do a digital search to retrieve them, you can't find them manually, and since you won't keep notes, you get one chance to address the contents of my posts - when you first see them. When you let that go by, well, it's gone for you. Those are my rules. You can adapt to them and we can have a mature discussion without all of hand-holding and your special needs, or not.

 

[leroy]

Even though due to you actions where you made false claims Saturday and played your silly game again and I did show that you were not being honest. I will give you a link to the post where you started this nonsense. You keep changing your argument after that:

Darwin's Illusion

Your ridiculous post on a fossil rabbit in the Cambrian and your attitude concerning how evidence is handled is more than enough to document your dishonesty concerning the fact that you reject evolution. Yes, the history of your posts concerning your bogus claim of skepticism and doubt is more...

www.religiousforums.com

First it was they needed more positive than negative. Then you tried to say more positive "relevant" mutations. And now you are finally very close to what the scientists that support evolution says. It was interesting to see your claim evolve as everyone pointed out that it was wrong.

Here is a chance for you to earn some credit that might help you get the corrections only status lifted if you fail, then I only need to remind you of this and other failures of yours when pointing out that you do not get to demand soruces.

What are you talking about? Since that very post I said “most”

“most of them have to be positive (so that NS selection can select it)……….”

And from the context, it is clear that I was not talking about all mutations, but rather only the relevant mutations (relevant to build an eye form an blind creature)

everyone pointed out that it was wrong.

No sir, quote my specific comment and explain why is it wrong?

stop making random accusations.

 

[leroy]

You are beign ignored,becasue these are red herring fallacies, I already told you that…….

Yeah, these:
1 I asked you to develop and explain with detail a spcific hypothesis, and expalin why is it better than “resurection”
2 you answered with a list of hypothesis (none of them where developed, just mentioned)
3 I replied by saying that, you didn’t answered to my demand , I was not asking for a list, I was asking for a well developed and well explained hypotheiss
4 I asked you multiple times to “develop and explain with detail a specific hypothesis, and explain why is it better than “resurection”
5 “You said that you already did”…… (you already provided the hypothesis according to my specifications)………. Which is a lie

What you have to do is tell me which of these 5 points never happened…………… or do you grant that all 5 points happened?


this thread is about evolution......................... do you disagree wiht anything that I have said on the topic of evolution..................if yes, quote my comment and start your response with "I disagree because......"

 

[leroy]

I would not know how to do such a calculation so why would I propose doing one? You clearly know even less so the question is why did you attempt something that you are totally unqualified for?

Well that is part of the point, we don’t know and nobody knows. Nobody is in position to claim or to deny that system is irreducibly complex

In order to do claims

1 Firs the evolutionist has to provide a path explaining how for example a blind creature evolved eyes (explain which mutations had to occur and in what order,)

2 then the ID proponent has to show that there is a “irreducible complex 2 step, and thus show that the path is not viable.

We are nowhere near this,

So we simply don´t know

you are totally unqualified for

We are talking about hypothetical barriers, all I am saying I that any point that corresponds to my assumption would be an example of a barrier very hard to overcome.



The original point that I am refuting, is the claim that once you have random mutations+NS you automatically can do whatever you want…………… my point is that there are barriers (at least hypothetical) that this mechanism could not overcome.



in otrher words, once you have mutations + NS it doesnt necesairly follows that a blind creature can evovle eyes by this mechanism..............(agaiin nothign controvertial) what I am saying is obviously true

 

[leroy]

How many times have I explained this to you?
This silly "...but they are still fruitflies!!!!" strawman is just willful ignorance on your part.

Willful, because you had this precise mistake pointed out to you SO MANY TIMES that I can no longer pretend that you aren't doing this on purpose.

I find it amazing how creationists can so insist on being wrong.

What @YoursTrue is asking is how do you get something fundamentally different, from the original specie.

For example how do you go from a flightless insect, to a fruitflie (that can has wings and can fly)

In my opinion it is a good question , the fact that you can have variations of fruitflies doesn’t imply that a flightless insect can develop wings.

 

[leroy]

You don't. A neutral mutations would not have a negative impact, thus there is no reason why it would be selected against.
The first neutral mutation can sit there quitely until the other occurs.
The do not need to happen at the same time.

Not for a long time, genetic drift would tend to filter the “neutral mutation” within a few generations , the mutation will likely disappear................so it is not like the neutral mutation will still be there for millions of years

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are beign ignored,becasue these are red herring fallacies, I already told you that

Yes, I know that's what you wrote, and I don't believe you. I don't think you have a choice in it, and that's being charitable.

Here's my ordered list of candidate hypotheses to account for that:

1. Cognitive defect in understanding what is written (some kind of dyslexia for ideas rather than words)
2. Cognitive defect in seeing what's written (extreme confirmation bias) preventing ideas from reaching consciousness
3. Trolling

Is there another logical possibility? If so, I haven't thought of it. If you're trolling, you've fooled me.

What you have to do is tell me which of these 5 points never happened

This is what being ignored by you looks like. You already asked for this and received your answer.

this thread is about evolution......................... do you disagree wiht anything that I have said on the topic of evolution..................if yes, quote my comment and start your response with "I disagree because......"

And this. Same comment.

 

[leroy]

Why would there be an "irreducibly complex" step?
Are you making an argument from ignorance?

No, I am saying that we don’t know if there are Irreducibly Complex steps.

1 first the evolutionist has to provide the steps (which mutations do you need to evolve say an eye)

2 then the ID proponent has to show that there is a IC step

None of these has been done.

 

[leroy]

1. Cognitive defect in understanding what is written (some kind of dyslexia for ideas rather than words)
2. Cognitive defect in seeing what's written (extreme confirmation bias) preventing ideas from reaching consciousness
3. Trolling

4 I don’t what to move away to the original topic.


You are desperate to change the topic because you are cornered…………. I showed that you were lying and you have no way out of that

You know that each of the 5 points did happened and you know that implication is that you lied.

 

[YoursTrue]

So you either don't understand or don't care about what this says about evolution. OK.

The point is in the last quoted line: the two mutations in the same gene strongly indicate a common ancestor.

Maybe you should take your own advice?

If someone challenges me or asserts his viewpoint but doesn't know about indigenous populations that generate typically long or short legs en masse, why should I take their viewpoints for granted? Yet Masai generate very long legged people and pygmies can produce short legged people but they're still people. Or humans.

 

[Polymath257]

If someone challenges me or asserts his viewpoint but doesn't know about indigenous populations that generate typically long or short legs en masse, why should I take their viewpoints for granted? Yet Masai generate very long legged people and pygmies can produce short legged people but they're still people. Or humans.

And why do you think that is relevant to the discussion?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

4 I don’t what to move away to the original topic.
You are desperate to change the topic because you are cornered…………. I showed that you were lying and you have no way out of that
You know that each of the 5 points did happened and you know that implication is that you lied.

No 4 doesn't explain all of the ignoring you did. Look at the last two comments of my previous post again. That ignoring didn't appear intentional, which is why I go with numbers 1 and 2 first and trolling last.

What I know (as do you) is that you have a comprehension issue. What I know is that maybe 2% of what I write to you gets in and adheres undistorted. What I know is that your judgment regarding what you saw is skewed because of that, and nothing you write should be considered an accurate reproduction of what transpired.

 

[YoursTrue]

And why do you think that is relevant to the discussion?

That you don't think so is telling. have a good one.

 

[YoursTrue]

They're only wrong about the bits that don't agree with your religious beliefs?

Your so-called scientific beliefs, even if some adherents say they can be proved, really can't be. But of course some adherents say they can be.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that is part of the point, we don’t know and nobody knows. Nobody is in position to claim or to deny that system is irreducibly complex

No, you definitely do not know. I do not know. Others may know. If you want to claim that nobody knows the burden of proof is upon you. You need to remember when you make absolute statements that the burden of proof is upon you, and that includes when you make claims of others no knowing. You need to admit that you screwed up with your poor attempt at calculations.

In order to do claims

1 Firs the evolutionist has to provide a path explaining how for example a blind creature evolved eyes (explain which mutations had to occur and in what order,)

What makes you think that it has to show what mutations occurred in what order? You just made a foolish claim that puts the burden of proof upon you again.

2 then the ID proponent has to show that there is a “irreducible complex 2 step, and thus show that the path is not viable.

ID has to do a lot more than that. You do know that every claim of "irreducible complexity" to date has been refuted. And it is worse than that, they need to show that IR is more than just an argument from ignorance. They have come nowhere close to ever doing that.

We are nowhere near this,

So we simply don´t know

No, once again you do not know because you insist upon using strawman arguments.

We are talking about hypothetical barriers, all I am saying I that any point that corresponds to my assumption would be an example of a barrier very hard to overcome.

No, they are not even "hypothetical barriers". To be hypothetical the concept needs to be testable. In a scientific argument you need to use scientific terms. You could say "barriers from an argument from ignorance" or more simply "handwaved barriers".

The original point that I am refuting, is the claim that once you have random mutations+NS you automatically can do whatever you want…………… my point is that there are barriers (at least hypothetical) that this mechanism could not overcome.

And you are back to making a strawman argument. No one has been claiming that.

in otrher words, once you have mutations + NS it doesnt necesairly follows that a blind creature can evovle eyes by this mechanism..............(agaiin nothign controvertial) what I am saying is obviously true

And again, no one has claimed that. Here let me help you a bit. We can observe all stages of evolution of the eye. We have working models of eye evolution. They can be tested and confirmed so we do have a good knowledge of how the eye evolved. You want extremely precise knowledge and that is not needed to know that an event occurred. You might as well try to argue that a killer was not proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because we did not know what he had for breakfast that morning. You are trying to make unreasonable arguments.

As to models of eye evolution you can look them up yourself. The last time I checked you have not owned up to the last two times you were shown to be wrong. Until you admit when that happens you cannot demand evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I am saying that we don’t know if there are Irreducibly Complex steps.

1 first the evolutionist has to provide the steps (which mutations do you need to evolve say an eye)

2 then the ID proponent has to show that there is a IC step

None of these has been done.

And again, until that someone demonstrate that there is such a thing as irreducibly complex steps there is no such need. This is merely an attempt to shift the burden of proof again.

 

[leroy]

No 4 doesn't explain all of the ignoring you did. Look at the last two comments of my previous post again. That ignoring didn't appear intentional, which is why I go with numbers 1 and 2 first and trolling last.

What I know (as do you) is that you have a comprehension issue. What I know is that maybe 2% of what I write to you gets in and adheres undistorted. What I know is that your judgment regarding what you saw is skewed because of that, and nothing you write should be considered an accurate reproduction of what transpired.

yes, but nothing in your comment (even if true) changes the fact that you lied

 

[Subduction Zone]

What @YoursTrue is asking is how do you get something fundamentally different, from the original specie.

For example how do you go from a flightless insect, to a fruitflie (that can has wings and can fly)

In my opinion it is a good question , the fact that you can have variations of fruitflies doesn’t imply that a flightless insect can develop wings.

But we never have fundamental changes. That is a strawman again. As to wing evolution of insects I am not an expert, but just as with vertebrate evolution for flight the steps would have had to have involved previous existing traits. The hard shell of an insect may have evolved into wings. A shell that has a split down the back, like that of beetles has more purposes than one. An early split could have been found to be useful for gliding. Gliding to flying is merely a refinement.

 

[leroy]

And you are back to making a strawman argument. No one has been claiming that.

It is not a straw man………… the problem is that you always jump in to my conversations without understanding the context.

I am responding to that claim

But we do have new species. And that means the small changes we see can add up to give large changes over more generations.

The point that I made is that the small changes that we see, don’t necessarily add up to the big changes that we need to explain the diversity of life.

Perhaps there is a barrier (as in my hypothetical example)

That is all, nothing controversial in my comments,