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

[LuisDantas]

It is from philosophy. And is connected to the debate of realism versus anti-realism in regards to the epistemological ability to know anything about objective reality.

So I learn now.

That is quite out of place when discussing biological evolution, though.

These are not the 1950s anymore.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Having read the wiki article, I think it's a bit ironic that you accuse others of such.

Well, yes. I might have overdone it from some of the posters here, but not all as far as I can tell.

But off course it is real that you are objectively useless. Just because I feel/think so subjectively, then it is real.

 

[PureX]

And you resent science for trying to understand how such came about - simply preferring some creation of your own mind?

Science has no idea what happened, and is not even capable of investigating it. Science is totally dependent on the functional fact of it happening and cannot therefor look beyond it. I don't resent science. But neither do I deify it and pretend it's capable of something that it is not.

 

[PureX]

So I learn now.

That is quite out of place when discussing biological evolution, though.

These are not the 1950s anymore.

Evolution is not an isolated phenomena. It's just one aspect of a holistic existential event. So the question of it's source is logically just as holistic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Evolution is not an isolated phenomena. It's just one aspect of a holistic existential event. So the question of it's source is logically just as holistic.

Frankly: is that your excuse to be a fictionalist?

You ought to aim higher, pal.

 

[McBell]

Science has no idea what happened,

As @ChristineM has pointed out numerous times on this forum, there are more than 30 scientifically based ideas of what happened.

and is not even capable of investigating it.

Yet there are more than 30 scientifically based ideas of what happened...

Science is totally dependent on the functional fact of it happening and cannot therefor look beyond it.

And?
I mean so what?
Seems science does not offer you up a quick easy right now explanation so you fill in the gap with what suits your fancy.

I don't resent science.

Seems you idolize the gap...

But neither do I deify it and pretend it's capable of something that it is not.

yet you completely skipped over:

Show the explanatory power and explain how it was shown to be possible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The best way for you to find answers is to study
relevant works on the primary & related subjects.

Sadly, the one thing deniers have not the slightest interest in doing...the urge to hold on to cherished ignorance being so strong.

 

[McBell]

It's just one aspect of a holistic existential event.

That is your claim.
one you are having a rather difficult time convincing others of.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Back in 2007, while I was giving final exams, my wife told then Senator Barack Obama that he would be the next President of the United States of America.

She was concerned for the safety of him and his family, given the dangers posed by the gundamentalists (like one of our armed forum members here), so she cast a magic spell on Senator Obama to keep him and his family safe.

They’re still alive to this day.

Yes, and sometimes a rain dance is followed (at some remove in time) by rain. Proving, what, exactly?

Spoiler

That sometimes it rains.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Science has no idea what happened, and is not even capable of investigating it. Science is totally dependent on the functional fact of it happening and cannot therefor look beyond it. I don't resent science. But neither do I deify it and pretend it's capable of something that it is not.

Perhaps not capable of this now but I wouldn't therefore claim that future science could never understand reality better than anything else could, so dissing science because we are where we are with such is a bit naïve in my view. Why do so many expect the answers to everything simply because they can't live properly without such? Just go back even several centuries and imagine what they had to deal with.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, can you justify your worldview? The problem is that you assume you can do that in your answer to the rest of us.

It is called taking for granted. You take for granted you can justify your worldview. And you don't like if that is questioned.

And on and on it goes.

You're like a broken record.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And on and on it goes.

You're like a broken record.

Yeah, I know. The problem of justification is as old as Christianity and it has never in recorded history been solved by anybody. And that is regardless of religious or not.
So we are as per the header of the thread doing justification. And unless you claim that you are special, then that also applies to you. And everybody else including me. But the joke about me as a skeptic, is that I will state that I am not special and that I can't do justifiaction in the strong postive sense.
In other words I accept a negative as an answer, just as per natural science as falsifiable and falsification.
If you ask is it possible to in effect objectively justify in a strong sense any explanation, then you might want to consider that you could get a negative answer. That is what in the end makes you a skpetic. Not that you doubt religion, but that you doubt any understand as to whether it has limits.

So are you a skeptic or what?

 

[PureX]

Frankly: is that your excuse to be a fictionalist?

You ought to aim higher, pal.

And you should set that silly ego aside so you can see more clearly. I am posing no fiction, here. I'm just reminding you of a possibility that your bias abhors. And that has you sputtering.

 

[PureX]

As @ChristineM has pointed out numerous times on this forum, there are more than 30 scientifically based ideas of what happened.


Yet there are more than 30 scientifically based ideas of what happened...

Because they have no idea what actually happened. How it happened. Or why it happened. Religions have a whole array of imaginary possibilities, too. But they don't actually know any more than the scientists do. But just as they "believe in" their religions, you believe in your scientism. And just as they blindly defend what they can't actually know, so do you.

And?
I mean so what?
Seems science does not offer you up a quick easy right now explanation so you fill in the gap with what suits your fancy.

I am not filling in any gaps. I am simply pointing out that the God answer is as much a possibility as any other we might imagine. And when considered properly, it is the more logical. Certainly compared to the random accident theory that most atheists try to push forward.

 

[PureX]

That is your claim.
one you are having a rather difficult time convincing others of.

I am not here to convince anyone of anything. Especially not those that do not want to be convinced of anything that they don't already believe they know.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps not capable of this now but I wouldn't therefore claim that future science could never understand reality better than anything else could, so dissing science because we are where we are with such is a bit naïve in my view. Why do so many expect the answers to everything simply because they can't live properly without such? Just go back even several centuries and imagine what they had to deal with.

It would no longer be science in any way that we currently understand it if it could see beyond the mechanics of material existence to the source and purpose.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because they have no idea what actually happened. How it happened. Or why it happened. Religions have a whole array of imaginary possibilities, too. But they don't actually know any more than the scientists do. But just as they "believe in" their religions, you believe in your scientism. And just as they blindly defend what they can't actually know, so do you.

I am not filling in any gaps. I am simply pointing out that the God answer is as much a possibility as any other we might imagine. And when considered properly, it is the more logical. Certainly compared to the random accident theory that most atheists try to push forward.

Even as an atheist, I understand how your position makes sense, but as a skeptic we might not agree on the finer points of logic.

 

[Dimi95]

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.

Yes,but we can see these chemical subunits of DNA functioning as alphabetic charachters in a written text or like the zeros and ones in the section of computer science.
This language functions on its own.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

Do you know what is Neurogenesis?

The Science Behind How New Brain Cells Are Generated

Adult neurogenesis refers to the formation of new brain cells in adults. Learn more about what the research says about how adult humans grow new brain cells.

www.verywellmind.com

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.

Our eyes don't actually 'see' anything. That part is done by our visual cortex.
The primary purpose of the visual cortex is to receive, segment, and integrate visual information.
We have an optic nerve at the back of each eye that connects directly to our brain. Each optic nerve is a one-way connection, and it only carries signals from your eyes to your brain.When light hits the retina , special cells called photoreceptors turn the light into electrical signals.These electrical signals travel from the retina through the optic nerve to the brain.Then the brain turns the signals into the images we see.
The blind may also use and rely on mental imagery, as studies cited that they can have generated visuospatial images, but not visual traces.

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

Yes , It digests and absorbs nutrients from food and excretes waste.

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

Corrected , but yes they are hundreds more which you have not observed as noted.

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

So Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence?

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 is straw-man argument.

You are talking about genetic drift.

Evolution is any shift in allele frequencies in a population over generations , whether that shift is due to natural selection or some other evolutionary mechanism, and whether that shift makes the population better-suited for its environment or not.

 

[shunyadragon]

Magic evolves, like everything else in life that isn’t traveling at the speed of light.

Even neutrinos evolve, as we’ve just recently discovered.

Massless (Muse Neutrino Parody) | A Capella Science​

Put your magic wand away. This is a science question.

As usual not remotely related to the subject of the thread.

 

[shunyadragon]

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?

Oldy moldy repetitive religious argument based on the unfortunate intentional ignorance of science and ancient tribal text without provenance,