How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your claiming intentional ignorance.

The nature of science as science. The problem remains your nebulous vague slippery subjective philosophy and intentional ignorance of science.

This has been covered in a number of threads. Your stoic intractable denial of science is something you need to deal with., and not worth any more long involved dialogue. You KNOW what science is and what your subjective claims are.

You are so post-modern in that you believe that science is, what you say it is. It is the post-pmdern version of magical thinking in that reality is what you say it is. It is anti-science, anti-intellectual and in effect woo-woo.

So live up to the standard you demand of others and give a link.

 

[Sargonski]

Perhaps I can help clarify some of this.

This is an inherently contradictory demand. "Magic", by definition, is a process-to-result that we cannot understand according to any current means of understanding that we possess. Not understanding how it's happening is precisely why it's being called "magic". So the idea that we must have a functional and agreed upon definition of 'magic' is an inherently contradictory and irrational statement. It is exactly the LACK of those that defines magic as magical.

The logical flaw is yours friend.. We can understand what magic is ... without understanding how it happened. To have a coherent conversation about magic .. requires we define what is being called Magic .. so that I understand .. and you understand .. what it is that is being referred to .. such as - The ability to move a chair through force of will .. .. or to rain lightning from the sky by force of will ..

If you say "I dont believe in Magic" .. Wonderful .. but I have no clue what it is you don't believe in .. until you define what you mean by the term .. "magic" . which means many different things .. to many different people ..

And thus .. the irrational irrationality .. is all on your side of the fence friend .. and presumably everything else you said followed and so did not address anything else .. sorry if this assumption is mistaken.

 

[PureX]

Science exists because of the predictable Natural Determinism of the nature of our physical existence.

Yes, the fact the existence is the result of a set of design parameters and that those parameters are followed consistently. We humans like to call them the "laws of nature" even tough that's a bit a myopic term, since they are the parameters government the expression of what we refer to as "nature". And therefor predetermine it.

There is absolutely no evidence of a higher power, ie God. How can in any way objectively demonstrate the existence of the "Designer"?

The evidence is that existence, exists, and is highly organized and holistically interactive, and this didn't occur of its own volition.

Still waiting for independent verification of your claims with evidence other than you assertion based on a religious agenda,

All you have to do is open your eyes. But clearly you have no intention of doing that. So I guess you have a long wait.

 

[PureX]

The only answers we will ever get about reality will come from empiricism.

We are already getting all kinds of answers by all sorts of means. You just insist in a means that cannot provide you with any real answers.

You like to write a lot about questions empiricism hasn't answered and may never answer. So what? Religion won't answer them.

Religions do answer them. You just don't like the answers. And empriicism can't provide them for you. So you're making a religion of science and pretending that someday science will answer them. But all science can ever do is explain the mechanisms. And that is part of the aswer, but not the important part. So you will remain frustrated even then.

 

[PureX]

The logical flaw is yours friend.. We can understand what magic is ... without understanding how it happened.

But that IS how we understand what it is ... by not understanding how it's happening.

To have a coherent conversation about magic .. requires we define what is being called Magic .. so that I understand .. and you understand .. what it is that is being referred to .. such as - The ability to move a chair through force of will .. .. or to rain lightning from the sky by force of will ..

That's a nice fairy tale, but it's never going to happen. Because the fundamental aspect of "magic" is that we don't understand how it's happening. And if we don't understand how its happening, we aren't going to agree on the why, or the who, or the what for. So some will of us call it "magic" while others will call it "a mystery" while others will call it "a miracle", and so on. When we don't know, we tend to make up whatever explanation fits the way we already see reality. And look around you. That's exactly what we are doing when we encounter the unknown.

If you say "I dont believe in Magic" .. Wonderful .. but I have no clue what it is you don't believe in .. until you define what you mean by the term .. "magic" . which means many different things .. to many different people ..

What any of us "believes" is irrelevant, since believing is what we do when we don't know something but want to pretend that we do know.

You can learn, or you can argue and pretend you're never wrong because you know it all, already. That's up to you.

 

[Sargonski]

But that IS how we understand what it is ... by not understanding how it's happening.

That's a nice fairy tale, but it's never going to happen. Because the fundamental aspect of "magic" is that we don't understand how it's happening. And if we don't understand how its happening, we aren't going to agree on the why, or the who, or the what for. So some will of us call it "magic" while others will call it "a mystery" while others will call it "a miracle", and so on. When we don't know, we tend to make up whatever explanation fits the way we already see reality. And look around you. That's exactly what we are doing when we encounter the unknown.

What any of us "believes" is irrelevant, since believing is what we do when we don't know something but want to pretend that we do know.

You can learn, or you can argue and pretend you're never wrong because you know it all, already. That's up to you.

Your having trouble understanding the difference between understanding what some event is .. and what caused that event. In order for someone to know what event you ar referring to as "Magic" .. they have to know what event you are reverring to as magic .. and thus the term Magic needs be defined. U Understand ?

KK .. baby steps --- for those wanting to engage in the existential fallacy --- If you wish to claim that moving a chair by force of will is magic .. then you have defined magic as such. "The ability to move chair with mind" = Magic

If you don't define your term .. the other person has absolutely no idea what you are claiming is Magic .. and thus .. all you have is failed communication. You .. albeit unwittingly .. have defined magic as "nothing" and so you should have .. and more correctly stated "I don't believe in Nothing" .. which means you believe in something .. LOLOLOL

 

[gnostic]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

This opening post is nothing more than a classic case of Argument from Incredulity.

Plus, Mutations can be explained as one of mechanisms for how the sequence of nucleic acids can be altered, that produce changes to gene of any living organism. But these changes are often very small, and may or may not produce observable changes in the organism’s morphology (physical characteristics). Whether the changes or mutations are beneficial or malignant, it will either be added or deleted to DNA, and those mutated segments in the DNA, will be passed on, whether through replication or through reproduction, the traits will pass on to the next generation.

Mutations occur often during the lifetime of an individual organism, but as I said, changes are often small.

This mechanism for changes - through mutations - can only occur during within life that already exist. Mutations in the theory of Evolution have nothing to do with, how life first came to be. You are confusing Evolution with the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a proposed study, not just about first life, it is also about how some of biological molecules, or more precisely “macromolecules”, could have form inorganic chemicals, hence chemical reactions, to develop into these biological macromolecules.

Biologists in the fields of cell biology, molecular biology and biochemistry, already know which of these molecules that are essential for life, and exist in every cells of unicellular organisms or in multicellular organisms….these macromolecules are :

• PROTEINS - which are made of biopolymer sequences of amino acid; they are essential for providing structure to organisms (eg for multicellular organisms, structures exist in the forms of tissues) or exist as enzymes that act as catalyst for metabolism.
• NUCLEIC ACIDS - sequence of nucleotides, with each nucleotide comprising of 3 basic components:
  • 5-carbon sugars or pentose sugar (ribose for RNA, deoxyribose for DNA),
  • 4 out of 5 nitrogenous base molecules (or shortened to “nucleobase” molecules), eg adenine, cytosine & guanine, plus uracil for RNA, or thymine for DNA, and
  • 1 or more molecules in the phosphate group, eg adenosine monophosphate.
• CARBOHYDRATES - which have many different functions, as well as storing energy that keep cell alive (eg glucose for animals, and starch for plants), cellulose that act as wall to plant tissues, etc.
• LIPIDS - which also have many types that have many different functions, eg in DNA, lipids for protective membranes around nucleus and around organelles of eukaryotic cells.

Abiogenesis is about the origins of each these molecules that are so essential to all living organisms. These biological molecules have to exist prior to the development of first cell.

Abiogenesis is still active and ongoing researched study about how life could have formed. Evolution isn’t about the origin of life, but how organisms change, over generations (time), where speciations can occur.

Evolution & Abiogenesis are two different subjects, in which Evolution doesn’t require prior knowledge of first life.

You, like every other creationists seem incapable of understanding that. It is funny how creationists have the same trait - stubborn ignorance - that I would have expected that you are somehow genetically related.

 

[gnostic]

God is a possible explanation.

God isn’t an explanation for anything. It’s education flaw that theists would use, called SUPERSTITION.

Superstition make no objective attempt to study nature.

These “God did it” assertions are nothing more than ignorance and fear, so they attribute something, anything to imaginary entities that most likely not exist.

I wrote “likely”, as in “probable”, as used in statistics and probabilities, where you would require some set of data, before you can conclude something to be likely or unlikely, probable or improbable.

Probabilities are different from the possibility, which have more to do with religions and philosophies, meaning you can believe anything to be possible, but beliefs are purely subjective, don’t require independent data, and often the beliefs being accepted through faith, not evidence.

A belief in anything being possible, eg magic, miracles, deities, spirits, demons, fairies, etc, is belief in wild imagination.

Hence I would equate faith-based beliefs as the same with confirmation bias and with circular reasoning, argument from ignorance & argument from incredulity.

 

[Valjean]

You are mistaken if you think that science has discovered that evolution happened or could have happened without a designer and assistance along the way.

Evolution is well documented and easily observed. People have been doing selective breeding for thousands of years. It works. Variation and selection happens.
The mechanisms of evolution are well known and easily observed. Evolution is acknowledged by almost everyone but the religiously deluded. There is neither need nor evidence of a designer.

So it is a fallacious argument from incredulity to claim that nature did it all and not magic because the person claiming that does not believe in magic. The claim that it was only nature is a claim that contradicts personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

No. It's an argument from evidence, by people who follow the evidence whether they like it or not.
Evolution is well evidenced, God is not.

The Genesis account can be read to line up with the discoveries of science.

Not at all; neither of them.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, the fact the existence is the result of a set of design parameters and that those parameters are followed consistently. We humans like to call them the "laws of nature" even tough that's a bit a myopic term, since they are the parameters government the expression of what we refer to as "nature". And therefor predetermine it.

The evidence is that existence, exists, and is highly organized and holistically interactive, and this didn't occur of its own volition.

There is volition involved in nature by definition requires"

Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages

Google’s English dictionary is provided by Oxford Languages. Oxford Languages is the world’s leading dictionary publisher, with over 150 years of experience creating and delivering authoritative dictionaries globally in more than 50 languages.

languages.oup.com

"the faculty or power of using one's will."

We have no evidence for this.

All you have to do is open your eyes. But clearly you have no intention of doing that. So I guess you have a long wait.

I open my eyes I see Nature. Intentions by definition in Intelligent Design requires a 'Source' that intends, for which we have no evidence.

I actually believe in a Universal Source some call Gods, but I do not try a pervert science to make false claims of 'Intelligent Design' nor sling manure laden insults of scientism. I do not believe there is 'objective verifiable evidence' for the existence of Gods or Design in nature, and claims o 'Intelligent Design' are a hoax..

God is the Creator not an engineer that designs 'things.'

 

[shunyadragon]

You are so post-modern in that you believe that science is, what you say it is. It is the post-pmdern version of magical thinking in that reality is what you say it is. It is anti-science, anti-intellectual and in effect woo-woo.

So live up to the standard you demand of others and give a link.

Science IS NOT what I see IT is, Insults are not an adequate argument when you are not able(?) todo our own homework.

The nature of science as science. The problem remains your nebulous vague slippery subjective philosophy and intentional ignorance of science.

This has been covered in a number of threads. Your stoic intractable denial of science is something you need to deal with., and not worth any more long involved dialogue. You KNOW what science is and what your subjective claims are.

I have presented links in the past and of course you hand wave things in the past as philosophy. Simple google Methodological Naturalism, and the various topics related to basis of scientific methods. I do not spoon feed stoic denial of an anti-science world view as referenced.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see, of course, but you seem to think that science has shown that chemistry could have accomplished evolution without a third party intervention.

Evolution is a pretty simple and well understood process.
There is no agent involvement necessary at all.
That indeed has been demonstrated.

But that is not the case imo.

It is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Natural selection is the process by which the best random mutations survive in a population and help an organism to survive.

Yes, with makes it non-random.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science IS NOT what I saw IT is

The nature of science as science. The problem remains your nebulous vague slippery subjective philosophy and intentional ignorance of science.

This has been covered in a number of threads. Your stoic intractable denial of science is something you need to deal with., and not worth any more long involved dialogue. You KNOW what science is and what your subjective claims are.

Well, I don't recall you giving any links to what science is. So I will contiune to understand you as a post-modernist in that you believe reality is what you say it is at least in the case for what science is.

 

[PureX]

Your having trouble understanding the difference between understanding what some event is .. and what caused that event. In order for someone to know what event you ar referring to as "Magic" .. they have to know what event you are referring to as magic .. and thus the term Magic needs be defined. U Understand ?

Yes, we have to recognize that an unexplainable event is taking place. And because it is unexplained by any means we would normally apply, it becomes "magical" to us. The inability to explain it IS WHAT DEFINES IT AS MAGIC. So there is no further definition required, or possible.

If you wish to claim that moving a chair by force of will is magic .. then you have defined magic as such. "The ability to move chair with mind" = Magic

Doing what by all known means of understanding is impossible = "magic". The specific example is not a requirement of defining the term "magic". And so is not a requirement of anyone wishing to discuss the subject of "magic".

If you don't define your term .. the other person has absolutely no idea what you are claiming is Magic .. and thus .. all you have is failed communication.

I have defined the term "magic" many times. now. But it is defined by what we DON'T KNOW, not by what we do. And this fact seems to be escaping you.

You .. albeit unwittingly .. have defined magic as "nothing"

No, I have repeatedly defined it as an existent mystery. A mystery isn't nothing, it's something that we don't comprehend.

God isn’t an explanation for anything. It’s education flaw that theists would use, called SUPERSTITION.

You have no way of knowing that the God explanation is wrong, regardless of how or why it's being adopted. Thus, it remains a viable possibility in spite of your irrational bias against it.

Superstition make no objective attempt to study nature.

That it irrelevant.

These “God did it” assertions are nothing more than ignorance and fear, so they attribute something, anything to imaginary entities that most likely not exist.

The problem for you is that even if your accusations are true, those assertions that "God did it' could still be correct.

I wrote “likely”, as in “probable”, as used in statistics and probabilities, where you would require some set of data, before you can conclude something to be likely or unlikely, probable or improbable.

You have no idea what is likely or probable, and neither does anyone else.

Probabilities are different from the possibility, which have more to do with religions and philosophies, meaning you can believe anything to be possible, but beliefs are purely subjective, don’t require independent data, and often the beliefs being accepted through faith, not evidence.

You assessed probabilities are nothing more that your own unfounded bias.

A belief in anything being possible, eg magic, miracles, deities, spirits, demons, fairies, etc, is belief in wild imagination.

By definition, the source of existence is "magical".

Hence I would equate faith-based beliefs as the same with confirmation bias and with circular reasoning, argument from ignorance & argument from incredulity.

Of course you would, just as your blind bias dictates.

 

[Audie]

This opening post is nothing more than a classic case of Argument from Incredulity.

Plus, Mutations can be explained as one of mechanisms for how the sequence of nucleic acids can be altered, that produce changes to gene of any living organism. But these changes are often very small, and may or may not produce observable changes in the organism’s morphology (physical characteristics). Whether the changes or mutations are beneficial or malignant, it will either be added or deleted to DNA, and those mutated segments in the DNA, will be passed on, whether through replication or through reproduction, the traits will pass on to the next generation.

Mutations occur often during the lifetime of an individual organism, but as I said, changes are often small.

This mechanism for changes - through mutations - can only occur during within life that already exist. Mutations in the theory of Evolution have nothing to do with, how life first came to be. You are confusing Evolution with the hypothesis of Abiogenesis.

Abiogenesis is a proposed study, not just about first life, it is also about how some of biological molecules, or more precisely “macromolecules”, could have form inorganic chemicals, hence chemical reactions, to develop into these biological macromolecules.

Biologists in the fields of cell biology, molecular biology and biochemistry, already know which of these molecules that are essential for life, and exist in every cells of unicellular organisms or in multicellular organisms….these macromolecules are :

• PROTEINS - which are made of biopolymer sequences of amino acid; they are essential for providing structure to organisms (eg for multicellular organisms, structures exist in the forms of tissues) or exist as enzymes that act as catalyst for metabolism.
• NUCLEIC ACIDS - sequence of nucleotides, with each nucleotide comprising of 3 basic components:
  • 5-carbon sugars or pentose sugar (ribose for RNA, deoxyribose for DNA),
  • 4 out of 5 nitrogenous base molecules (or shortened to “nucleobase” molecules), eg adenine, cytosine & guanine, plus uracil for RNA, or thymine for DNA, and
  • 1 or more molecules in the phosphate group, eg adenosine monophosphate.
• CARBOHYDRATES - which have many different functions, as well as storing energy that keep cell alive (eg glucose for animals, and starch for plants), cellulose that act as wall to plant tissues, etc.
• LIPIDS - which also have many types that have many different functions, eg in DNA, lipids for protective membranes around nucleus and around organelles of eukaryotic cells.

Abiogenesis is about the origins of each these molecules that are so essential to all living organisms. These biological molecules have to exist prior to the development of first cell.

Abiogenesis is still active and ongoing researched study about how life could have formed. Evolution isn’t about the origin of life, but how organisms change, over generations (time), where speciations can occur.

Evolution & Abiogenesis are two different subjects, in which Evolution doesn’t require prior knowledge of first life.

You, like every other creationists seem incapable of understanding that. It is funny how creationists have the same trait - stubborn ignorance - that I would have expected that you are somehow genetically related.

" inorganic chemicals"?

 

[Pogo]

" inorganic chemicals"?

Lots of them, my Orchid food is all inorganic as are carbon dioxide and water.

Not a single organic chemical there.

" inorganic chemicals"?

I think could "have form inorganic" chemicals, should have been " have formed from inorganic chemicals.

 

[shunyadragon]

Natural selection is the process by which the best random mutations survive in a population and help an organism to survive.

Natural Selection nor mutations do not involve a random process.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Natural Selection nor mutations do not involve a random process.

Got a link for that?

 

[shunyadragon]

Got a link for that?

Science IS NOT what I see IT is, Insults are not an adequate argument when you are not able(?) todo our own homework.

The nature of science as science. The problem remains your nebulous vague slippery subjective philosophy and intentional ignorance of science.

This has been covered in a number of threads. Your stoic intractable denial of science is something you need to deal with., and not worth any more long involved dialogue. You KNOW what science is and what your subjective claims are.

I have presented links in the past and of course you hand wave things in the past as philosophy. Simple google Methodological Naturalism, and the various topics related to basis of scientific methods. I do not spoon feed stoic denial of an anti-science world view as referenced.