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

[Valjean]

God is a possible explanation.

No, God is just an agent, no mechanism is proposed.
"Who" = agency.
"How" = explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It isn't just about mutations. It is also about existing genetically heritable traits that come to dominate because of environmental factors that favor them. The point is that any heritable trait that confers an advantage for survival and reproduction will tend to spread more rapidly and overwhelm genetically programmed phenotypes that are less advantageous.

I didn't say it was just about mutations. I only clarified what mutations are and their position in evolution. Mutations are the main source of the heritable variation found in populations. The environment is constantly screening that variation.

In general, I agree, but you aren't saying anything different from what I previously agreed with, but rather expanding on it in a more detailed description.

I was also agreeing with the other points made.

 

[Copernicus]

I didn't say it was just about mutations. I only clarified what mutations are and their position in evolution. Mutations are the main source of the heritable variation found in populations. The environment is constantly screening that variation.

In general, I agree, but you aren't saying anything different from what I previously agreed with, but rather expanding on it in a more detailed description.

I was also agreeing with the other points made.

Thanks for the clarification. Just to be clear, I was replying to your response to PureX's post. I did not read your post carefully enough to realize that you had said basically the same thing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Thanks for the clarification. Just to be clear, I was replying to your response to PureX's post. I did not read your post carefully enough to realize that you had said basically the same thing.

I think we're good. I didn't take offense. Just clarifying.

I appreciate your candor and your posts.

 

[PureX]

Many things are possible....
- God did it.
- Reality is a simulation on a computer.
- Aliens did it.
- Someone else's gods did it

Those are all the same proposition, just with different place-holder labels.

What those explanations lack is usefulness.

Why should a proposed source of existence be “useful” to us?

Evolution makes predictions that can be tested, ie, it's science.
The other explanations offer us nothing useful.

Why would this matter? That seems like a very weirdly selfish comment.
“I only care that God exists if I can use it to my advantage.”

 

[Jimmy]

It's either evolution or magic. Personally i don't believe in magic

Oh oh oh it’s magic ya know…

 

[PureX]

No, God is just an agent, no mechanism is proposed.
"Who" = agency.
"How" = explanation.

The question is seeking the source, not the agent or the mechanism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those are all the same proposition, just with different place-holder labels.

People who believe in one of them will disagree with you.

Why should a proposed source of existence be “useful” to us?

If you don't need your beliefs to be
useful, go right ahead. I prefer science.

Why would this matter? That seems like a very weirdly selfish comment.
“I only care that God exists if I can use it to my advantage.”

That's a very odd response.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

If you don't need your beliefs to be
useful, go right ahead. I prefer science.

...

Well, useful is also useful to somebody as far as I can tell. And we do care about useful, but a useful belief don't need to correspond to reality for its belief, it only needs to be useful.
BTW science is build on beliefs,

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

A viable possibility would be something that has evidence and can be demonstrated to be real / plausible.
Just because you can dream something up, doesn't make it viable or possible in any way.

This is something you need to learn to understand.

How can you be so certain they are wrong when you don't know the answer, yourself?

The same way I know that the people in the TV can't see me.

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

No, just a rational critical thinker.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

A viable possibility would be something that has evidence and can be demonstrated to be real / plausible.
Just because you can dream something up, doesn't make it viable or possible in any way.
...

There is no objective, external referent for real. Just as with gods, you can't point to real. It is an abstract in your mind just as gods.
This text of yours is an abstract cogntive norm for how one should behave to qualify in your view for the words evidence and so on to be meaningful to you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can validate the claim two ways ("demonstrate" is a stupid request). One, is that it is logical and reasonable for us to presume that existence as we know it has a source; call it "God", call it a "singularity", call it "Bob". Whatever we call it, the name is just a placeholder for a profound mystery that neither science, religion, or philosophy can penetrate.

Why do you insist on using a word that has so much baggage if what you really mean is merely "I don't know"?
Don't you think it would be more efficient communication to instead just say "I don't know"?




You have this really annoying habit of using words in ways that nobody else uses them. And then you rant about how nobody understands what you are saying.
Maybe you should reflect on that a bit.

And the second form of validation is also via logic. And that is that whatever this mystery source is, it would logically have to be transcendent in scope and power of that which has sprung from it. By definition, it would have to be "supernatural" to have manifested the 'nature' of all that exists.

This does not follow at all.
If the origins of the universe are a natural process, then that process / source / what-have-you would be just as much part of nature as the universe is.

Saying stuff like this, while insisting on using the word "god" when you supposedly just mean ignorance, is what makes everybody here think you have a not-so-hidden agenda to sneak "supernatural" religious things into scientific discourse in rather disingenuous ways.

You all are just going to keep repeating this idiocy because you honestly have no idea how to participate in a philosophical discussion.

I don't care about your word games masquerading as "philosophical discussion".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There is no objective, external referent for real. Just as with gods, you can't point to real. It is an abstract in your mind just as gods.
This text of yours is an abstract cogntive norm for how one should behave to qualify in your view for the words evidence and so on to be meaningful to you.

Again with the word salad which has nothing to do with the point made in the post you are replying to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again with the word salad which has nothing to do with the point made in the post you are replying to.

Well, this is about justification and that includes your justification and not just everybody else's. The point of critical thinking, skepticism and so on is that it applies to everybody and that includes us both.
So you are on the hook as much as religious people are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, this is about justification and that includes your justification and not just everybody else's. The point of critical thinking, skepticism and so on is that it applies to everybody and that includes us both.
So you are on the hook as much as religious people are.

No

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No

Yeah, thank you for being honest. Well, that no explains a lot in regards to your other posts in general.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah, thank you for being honest. Well, that no explains a lot in regards to your other posts in general.

No

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No

Yeah, thank you for being honest. Well, that no explains a lot in regards to your other posts in general.

 

[ChristineM]

I know plenty about you ?! enough to correct your baseless claim and flawed logic Why are you continuing to play the victim as if you have been slighted in some way .. running around crying "Ignorant" When all I have done is explain a flaw in your beliefs ... this flaw that you have not defined your terms .. and so how can you say whether or not you believe in Magic .. if that term is undefined ?

Don't have to know anything about your what you believe to tell you this Sister Christina .. now did you wish to define your term ... so we can understand what it is that you don't believe in ?

What total BS

What you have done is push your ignorant opinion. Nothing more, nothing less so bigging yourself up is just a childish reaction to tha fact not everyone bows down to you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

But the differences between AI - as predicted by those experts dealing with this apparently - and humans, is that an advanced AI might know all that is able to be known, whether physical or not (which is probably not possible for any human), and given this, it is possible that such an AI might be able to understand or figure out if existence came into being without some Creator.