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

[Pogo]

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.

Psychology of Philosophy?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Unlike your unknown unevidenced deity that can do anything you want it to do. Yeah, you have an idea.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Psychology of Philosophy?

Well, yes. It connects to psychology in a sense.
One simple way to understand what philosophy is, is how someone thinks (about thinking).
But the () is metacognition and we as humans don't do that in same manner.

 

[Pogo]

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.

No we just prefer I don't know to Pixies did it.

 

[Pogo]

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.

understanding it as a possibility is a far cry from insisting it is reality.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Assuming there is such of course, and even then, why would you assume that future science couldn't actually do this? Given the advances already made with AI, we might expect an intelligence capable of understanding all of existence - perhaps.

 

[Pogo]

That's easy. It's logical to assume that some source must exist in some sense, even if we have no way of comprehending the what, or how, or why of it. While the alternatives: that there is no source, and it all just spontaneously happened from nothingness and for no reason, or, that existence is eternal in spite of the fact that nothing that exists is eternal, are both just patently illogical propositions.

"God" is just a placeholder term we use for what we imagine and refer to as this presumed mystery source of existence.

Uh, no that is just the beginning of the the turtles all the way down argument. What is the origin of your source?

 

[Pogo]

I sincerely can’t. Even something less complex as a caterpillar turning into a butterfly boggles my mind and, imv, challenges random mutations.

That's ok, enough of us can so that science and progress continue.

 

[Sargonski]

Don't tell me what i believe, it's ignorant.



I'll wait.



In your opinion.

It is not my fault you believe what you do .. so let not shoot the messenger while playing the victim of some slight. .. sorry you wish not to hear correction but I will not apologize for such in a debate forum .. and it is not "ignorant" --- living in denial of correction is what breeds ignorance .. the correction itself is not.

What is it that you claim not to believe ? Have you actually thought about what a reasonable definition would be --- this thing you claim to believe in but have yet to define ?

and this is not "Opinion" this is the conclusion of the material world .. when studied with an objective lens .. whether or not I agree with this conclusion would be opinion .. one that rips open the space-time continuum .. that folks sometimes refer to as the brain.

What is it that you are waiting for ? -- "Aliens to Arrive" LOL .. really .. How about you define what this Magic you don't believe in prior to Aliens showing up and demonstrating this Magic.

Then . once we passed this basic hurdle - defining one's terms and all .. we can progress to greater things such as the God of Evolution that you do not believe in YET - and many never understand why things are so grand .. in the land of the quantum gulch ..

 

[ChristineM]

It is not my fault you believe what you do .. so let not shoot the messenger while playing the victim of some slight. .. sorry you wish not to hear correction but I will not apologize for such in a debate forum .. and it is not "ignorant" --- living in denial of correction is what breeds ignorance .. the correction itself is not.

What is it that you claim not to believe ? Have you actually thought about what a reasonable definition would be --- this thing you claim to believe in but have yet to define ?

and this is not "Opinion" this is the conclusion of the material world .. when studied with an objective lens .. whether or not I agree with this conclusion would be opinion .. one that rips open the space-time continuum .. that folks sometimes refer to as the brain.

What is it that you are waiting for ? -- "Aliens to Arrive" LOL .. really .. How about you define what this Magic you don't believe in prior to Aliens showing up and demonstrating this Magic.

Then . once we passed this basic hurdle - defining one's terms and all .. we can progress to greater things such as the God of Evolution that you do not believe in YET - and many never understand why things are so grand .. in the land of the quantum gulch ..

You telling me what i believe when you know nothing about me is thr height of ignorance. Though don't expect you to apologize for what you fail to understand.

I thought you knew what i believe, certainly that's the impression you give.

Yup its your opinion, but feel free to believe whatever you want about it.

 

[PureX]

Uh, no that is just the beginning of the the turtles all the way down argument. What is the origin of your source?

That question isn't even logical.

 

[PureX]

Assuming there is such of course, and even then, why would you assume that future science couldn't actually do this?

Well, that would be the definition of "science". You're asking the equivalent of, "Why do you assume that human will never be omniscient?" The answer is because that would transcend the definition of everything it means to be human.

 

[PureX]

No we just prefer I don't know to Pixies did it.

You can prefer it all you like. What you can't do is defend it logically or evidently, as you are constantly demanding everyone else must. You say you prefer, "I don't know", but then you fight with and insult anyone that dares to share a viable possibility. How can you be so certain they are wrong when you don't know the answer, yourself?

Or are you a slave to your own biased ego and so just can't help yourself?

 

[bobhikes]

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?

Sure

A typical eukaryotic cell cycle is illustrated by human cells in culture, which divide approximately every 24 hours.

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?

Sure,

A typical eukaryotic cell cycle is illustrated by human cells in culture, which divide approximately every 24 hours.

Now take a penny and double it every 24 hours how long until you're the richest person on earth. See chart below.

Now continue this for billions of years and it gets plenty complicated. I'm not even sure we have a number for it but it just might be equal to all the cells on earth or pretty close.

 

[PureX]

Sure
View attachment 92398

Now continue this for billions of years and it gets plenty complicated. I'm not even sure we have a number for it but it just might be equal to all the cells on earth or pretty close.

Sure, but far the greater mystery is how and why that one penny began to "double" itself.

 

[Pogo]

You can prefer it all you like. What you can't do is defend it logically or evidently, as you are constantly demanding everyone else must. You say you prefer, "I don't know", but then you fight with and insult anyone that dares to share a viable possibility. How can you be so certain they are wrong when you don't know the answer, yourself?

Or are you a slave to your own biased ego and so just can't help yourself?

Most of us understand that a possibility is a possibility, not a proof of existence. YMMV

 

[PureX]

Most of us understand that a possibility is a possibility, not a proof of existence. YMMV

Then why are you constantly demanding proof for every possibility that you encounter, even though you know you can't have it, and that you couldn't recognize even if you were given it?

 

[Pogo]

Then why are you constantly demanding proof for every possibility that you encounter, even though you know you can't have it, and that you couldn't recognize even if you were given it?

because a possibility is a possibility and its existence is only a possibility without evidence recognizable by more than just you.

Most of us understand that a possibility is a possibility, not a proof of existence.

 

[PureX]

because a possibility is a possibility and its existence is only a possibility without evidence recognizable by more than just you.

What "evidence" you choose to recognize is your own business. It has nothing to do with anyone else. And the same is true for them. So why are you demanding they present you with theirs just so you can dismiss it? I can't think of any reason to do that but to serve your own ego. And to what end? So you can feel "smart" at their expense? And what do you think they're going to think of someone that does that?

Most of us understand that a possibility is a possibility, not a proof of existence.

No one needs any "proof of existence" since we all "exist" and this is self-evident. And anyway, that's not what this discussion is even about. The question being discussed is about the source of the meta-design that is being manifested by existence (as evolution, or any other). You say you don't know, and yet you continually fight with anyone that proposes any possibility that you don't like. Even though you have no way of knowing that any idea you're being offered, or any idea being held to by someone else, is wrong.

Why?

 

[Pogo]

What "evidence" you choose to recognize is your own business. It has nothing to do with anyone else. And the same is true for them. So why are you demanding they present you with theirs just so you can dismiss it? I can't think of any reason to do that but to serve your own ego. And to what end? So you can feel "smart" at their expense? And what do you think they're going to think of someone that does that?

No one needs any "proof of existence" since we all "exist" and this is self-evident. And anyway, that's not what this discussion is even about. The question being discussed is about the source of the meta-design that is being manifested by existence (as evolution, or any other). You say you don't know, and yet you continually fight with anyone that proposes any possibility that you don't like. Even though you have no way of knowing that any idea you're being offered, or any idea being held to by someone else, is wrong.

Why?

Read it again.

Most of us understand that a possibility is a possibility, not a proof of existence.