Evolution: Just A Reminder *sigh*

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know methodological naturalism is pure science. But naturalism applied to the big existential questions is still philosophy. It could be that the laws of nature do not come from mindless processes.

It could also be that we are all brains in vats.
Or that there is a god and that I actually am the only human that actually exists, placed into some big virtual reality test and all other humans being just "bots" to make the world believable to me.

Pretty much anything your imagination can produce that isn't falsifiable, "could be".

What's the use of pondering such ideas?

 

[osgart]

It could also be that we are all brains in vats.
Or that there is a god and that I actually am the only human that actually exists, placed into some big virtual reality test and all other humans being just "bots" to make the world believable to me.

Pretty much anything your imagination can produce that isn't falsifiable, "could be".

What's the use of pondering such ideas?

Well I don't believe in God nor simulation theory. But I do infer that intelligence is responsible for intelligence, and to me no one has ever successfully refuted that. And it is far more plausible than that we occured mindlessly. I don't even question it anymore.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well I don't believe in God nor simulation theory. But I do infer that intelligence is responsible for intelligence, and to me no one has ever successfully refuted that. And it is far more plausible than that we occured mindlessly. I don't even question it anymore.

No one needs to demonstrate that your belief is wrong. All that is needed is to point out that you have no evidence that supports your beliefs. And in the world of science, which is evidence based, that is a refutation.

 

[osgart]

No one needs to demonstrate that your belief is wrong. All that is needed is to point out that you have no evidence that supports your beliefs. And in the world of science, which is evidence based, that is a refutation.

Novelty that functions efficiently is evidence enough for me. The body isn't a senseless instrument, it serves its purposes. Everything functions for a reason. It's far from perfect intelligence though.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Novelty that functions efficiently is evidence enough for me. The body isn't a senseless instrument, it serves its purposes. Everything functions for a reason. It's far from perfect intelligence though.

Sorry, that is not evidence. That is only confirmation bias at best.

And yes,everything functions for a reason. Biologists understand those reasons. Perhaps you should ask them.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Apparently someone is not moderately well informed when they ask an evolutionist why they believe in abiogenesis, or elves, as the source of the precursor organism.

Part of the point being that one can accept evolution without having to accept "abiogenesis." Here you are just making the same mistakes again. I wish it were surprising.

 

[osgart]

Sorry, that is not evidence. That is only confirmation bias at best.

And yes,everything functions for a reason. Biologists understand those reasons. Perhaps you should ask them.

I disagree. They will have a bias to explain away the intelligence of an ingenious, intelligent instrument.

What biologist book do you recommend though?

I am positive that they will try to explain away the simple evidence with an elaborate narrative. Using gradualism over extremely long periods of time to make it seem like nothing goal oriented happened.

Evolution has the strong seem of a goal oriented process, and I see it just as that.

The simple fact is that the body is well organized for functioning in its environment. Memory is a tool, and everything the body does is a tool.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. They will have a bias to explain away the intelligence of an ingenious, intelligent instrument.

What biologist book do you recommend though?

I am positive that they will try to explain away the simple evidence with an elaborate narrative. Using gradualism over extremely long periods of time to make it seem like nothing goal oriented happened.

Evolution has the strong seem of a goal oriented process, and I see it just as that.

The simple fact is that the body is well organized for functioning in its environment. Memory is a tool, and everything the body does is a tool.

You can disagree all that you want. You are still wrong. Once again you have no evidence and you will prove it for me.

What reasonable test could show that you are wrong?

 

[osgart]

You can disagree all that you want. You are still wrong. Once again you have no evidence and you will prove it for me.

What reasonable test could show that you are wrong?

You would have to show that the complexity in nature does not function, does not operate and can't achieve any goals.

If I am wrong you have won a lot of lotteries in a long succession of sequences without fail. And there would be no function, nor any efficiency nor sophistication.

Mutations would only be senseless with no functional success rate. And successes would not be able to build off of prior successes.

The intelligence is experimental, and adaptive. There will be nothing ideal nor perfect about what it makes. So the fail rate at functionality would have to squarely land at 0 percent functionality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The simple fact is that the body is well organized for functioning in its environment. Memory is a tool, and everything the body does is a tool.

A rock functions very well as a paperweight.

Does that mean it was organized for that purpose?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You would have to show that the complexity in nature does not function, does not operate and can't achieve any goals.

If I am wrong you have won a lot of lotteries in a long succession of sequences without fail. And there would be no function, nor any efficiency nor sophistication.

Mutations would only be senseless with no functional success rate. And successes would not be able to build off of prior successes.

The intelligence is experimental, and adaptive. There will be nothing ideal nor perfect about what it makes. So the fail rate at functionality would have to squarely land at 0 percent functionality.

And that is a fail on your part. You just admitted that you have no reliable evidence for your beliefs. You made a series of claims that puts the burden of proof upon you while trying to claim others have to do your homework for you.

I can see that you really have no idea how evolution works. Luck is not needed at all.

Would you like to know how you admitted to not having any evidence for your beliefs?

 

[osgart]

A rock functions very well as a paperweight.

Does that mean it was organized for that purpose?

Not the kind of function I am talking about. Specific, sophisticated, and efficient function is the kind I am talking about.

 

[osgart]

And that is a fail on your part. You just admitted that you have no reliable evidence for your beliefs. You made a series of claims that puts the burden of proof upon you while trying to claim others have to do your homework for you.

I can see that you really have no idea how evolution works. Luck is not needed at all.

Would you like to know how you admitted to not having any evidence for your beliefs?

Sure, go ahead!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not the kind of function I am talking about. Specific, sophisticated, and efficient function is the kind I am talking about.

Sorry, but those are merely indefinable nonsense claims of the creationist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, go ahead!

First off you failed to come up with a reasonable test. Your concept needs to be tested on its own merits. It is unreasonable and improper to argue that someone else has not explained everything and assume that means you are right. That is an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. You may be correct (though that is highly dubious) but someone else not being able to prove that they are right clearly does not mean that you are right. In fact both you and your opponent could be wrong.

So do you want to take another crack at it?

What reasonable test could show you to be wrong?

 

[osgart]

First off you failed to come up with a reasonable test. Your concept needs to be tested on its own merits. It is unreasonable and improper to argue that someone else has not explained everything and assume that means you are right. That is an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. You may be correct (though that is highly dubious) but someone else not being able to prove that they are right clearly does not mean that you are right. In fact both you and your opponent could be wrong.

So do you want to take another crack at it?

What reasonable test could show you to be wrong?

How would you make a reasonable test to prove or falsify that a pencil came about naturally instead of intelligently?

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would you make a reasonable test to prove or falsify that a pencil came about naturally instead of intelligently?

This is your test to see if you have any reliable evidence for your beliefs or if you are just hand waving. So far you have failed. Let's try not to attempt to shift the burden of proof. In my eyes that is an admission that one is wrong.

 

[osgart]

This is your test to see if you have any reliable evidence for your beliefs or if you are just hand waving. So far you have failed. Let's try not to attempt to shift the burden of proof. In my eyes that is an admission that one is wrong.

I have no burden of proof. It's self evident. Nor do I desire someone's homework on the matter.

 

[osgart]

This is your test to see if you have any reliable evidence for your beliefs or if you are just hand waving. So far you have failed. Let's try not to attempt to shift the burden of proof. In my eyes that is an admission that one is wrong.

And you probably have no test to falsify intelligence in nature?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no burden of proof. It's self evident. Nor do I desire someone's homework on the matter.

Wrong again. If it was "self evident" there would be no debate. If anything it is "self evident" that you are wrong since those that study this would disagree with you. And yes, you do have a burden of proof. You just admitted that you are wrong by failing to even try.

You can do it. You can admit that you cannot come up with a reliable test for your beliefs. When you admit this then I will explain why it means that you do not have any evidence for your beliefs.