|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 380 days) Posts: 876 From: Richmond, Virginia USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: How does Complexity demonstrate Design | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Is it a proof or not? A scientific experiment is never proof. Scientific conclusions are always tentative. So no, it's not proof.
You are typical ignorant. Which is more name-calling, not an argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: A scientific experiment is never proof. Scientific conclusions are always tentative. So no, it's not proof. OK, so you think a spontaneous generation is possible.Than you also think that it is possible there is a human in the world who doesn't need oxygen to stay alive. And that means you are saying evolution is just your assertion you have no evidence for, nothing more. That means it is the same belief as a belief in God. What a paradox ! OH MAN ! You've just stuck in your own words as mark24 did... You are funny. (do you remember 20+20=40 from discussion with mark24? Don't forget) Thanks for a discussion. I have no need to talk with you anymore. You have just shown to everybody what kind of person you really are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And that means you are saying evolution is just your assertion you have no evidence for, nothing more. No, it's a tentative conclusion supported by a weight of evidence. Just because scientific conclusions are tenative and not definative doesn't mean they're all assumptions. In fact, proof is the assumption - you can only have a proof by means of constructing a tautology from assumed axioms. The very reason that there is no proof in science stems from the scientific goal of making the least amount of assumptions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: No, it's a tentative conclusion supported by a weight of evidence. Just because scientific conclusions are tenative and not definative doesn't mean they're all assumptions. In fact, proof is the assumption - you can only have a proof by means of constructing a tautology from assumed axioms. The very reason that there is no proof in science stems from the scientific goal of making the least amount of assumptions. Sorry man, hopeless attempt. You are also using stuff you have never seen to "prove" evolution is correct so clearly: A=B=C ....that means I'm talking about A, you are talking about B and C is -> assertion without evidence, no proofs (in your and mark24's terminology). Or you can apply "20+20=40" example mentioned before, doesn't matter really. So again - according to your words Evolution is just an assertion without evidencese. So now it is just a question of belief really (nothing more) for you and mark24 (the others to come)... God or evolution (both the same - only different way of life)... doesn't matter for you both. Sorry you hear the truth, so my last post stands of course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MisterOpus1 Inactive Member |
I'm just curious, yxifix, have you presented any positive evidence of God's involvement with the creation of life?
For hypothetical sake, I'm perfectly willing to forego the evidence that has been demonstrated for different theories of abiogenisis right now, if you could present some verifiable evidence that a Divine influence began the process instead. I'd be very comfortable weighing an ID theory with evidence vs. other competing abiogenesis theories. But ATM it seems you are merely attempting to discredit those abiogenesis theories in order to support your idea without positive evidence. This continues to resemble the argument from false dilemna: Page not found - Nizkor So without falling into this fallacy, what positive evidence has been presented for an Intelligent Designer setting all life into motion? This message has been edited by MisterOpus1, 08-16-2004 10:23 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Have any of you ever seen a Zen Garden?
Have any of you ever visited an old fashioned garbage dump? Aslan is not a Tame Lion |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You are also using stuff you have never seen to "prove" evolution is correct so clearly I'm "proving" nothing. I'm simply saying that the scientific consensus is correct - evolution is the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth. You, on the other hand, are putting words in my mouth that I never said.
So again - according to your words Evolution is just an assertion without evidencese. You know I didn't say that, Y.
So now it is just a question of belief really You've done what I told you not to do - conflated tentativity with ignorance. Just because we don't know everything with 100%, eternal certainty, doesn't mean that everything we know is a belief. Science is tenative. It's not just making things up, like you do. It's clear that you're unable to comprehend how science works. Maybe you shouldn't be involved in cientific discussions, then?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Yes I understand pretty well, how DNA code can be created (yes, this is what we are talking about, not how it works) And in order to claim that the genetic code couldn't have come about by chance you have to demonstrate that you know what it is and how it works!. For somebody who was bleating so self-righteously about ignorance a few posts ago, you haven't actually shown that you understand much. To prove me otherwise all you have to do is give me a few sentences describing protein synthesis, but for some reason you are refusing to do this - if you don't have a clue about it just say so.
Now we are not talking about abiogenesis but about evolution itself, man, so think before replying You have presented the genetic code as evidence that there was a designer and that evolution is impossible, and I would like you to clarify this position. This seems like very clear thinking to me.
... and give me evidence for your premise What??? Let me just repeat my premise again: I have seen no evidence to suggest that the genetic code did not arise by random mutation and selection So you are, in effect, asking me to list all of the evidence that I have seen. OK, if you insist: Go to your local library, get out The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al, read the first few chapters and get back to me. Alternatively, you could tell me the particular aspects of the genetic code that you have a problem with, because that would save us a lot of time. There is of course a third option: you could avoid answering my questions again. This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-16-2004 02:44 PM This message has been edited by Ooook!, 08-16-2004 02:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
MisterOpus1 writes: So without falling into this fallacy, what positive evidence has been presented for an Intelligent Designer setting all life into motion? Of course, I have shown an evidence ! Most important posts:
Origin of Life 425 Origin of Life 428 message 226 If it is not a proof, please show me an example what is a proof. Thank you. But you should read more of these two discussions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
crashfrog writes: I'm "proving" nothing. I'm simply saying that the scientific consensus is correct - evolution is the most accurate model of the history of life on Earth. You, on the other hand, are putting words in my mouth that I never said. No. I'm not. Again, you are saying (20+20) ...I'm saying 40.
You know I didn't say that, Y. As mentioned you did. If Pasteur's discovery is not a proof, than you are saying evolution is just an assertion, nothing more. Sorry man, the truth hurts sometimes, doesn't it?
Just because we don't know everything with 100%, eternal certainty, doesn't mean that everything we know is a belief. Science is tenative. It's not just making things up, like you do. In fact, you don't know nothing really. Everything is just your assertion.Sorry again, as I said, I know proved truth is difficult to accept for you. But you have no other choice. You should start to think about yourself from now on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Ooook writes: And in order to claim that the genetic code couldn't have come about by chance you have to demonstrate that you know what it is and how it works!. For somebody who was bleating so self-righteously about ignorance a few posts ago, you haven't actually shown that you understand much. To prove me otherwise all you have to do is give me a few sentences describing protein synthesis, but for some reason you are refusing to do this - if you don't have a clue about it just say so. Believe me, it is not important... we can call it just information. But nevermind:
quote: I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY NOW. Or should I start also with RNA? So now I'll repeat my sentence once again: Yes I understand pretty well, how DNA code can be created (yes, this is what we are talking about, not how it works)
You have presented the genetic code as evidence that there was a designer and that evolution is impossible, and I would like you to clarify this position. This seems like very clear thinking to me. Yes sure, creation of DNA is surely (must be) a part of evolution itself.
What??? Let me just repeat my premise again: I have seen no evidence to suggest that the genetic code did not arise by random mutation and selection So you are, in effect, asking me to list all of the evidence that I have seen. clear proof (evidence) - message 226.If it is not a proof, please show me an example of a proof. Thank you. OK, if you insist: Go to your local library, get out The Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al, read the first few chapters and get back to me. Alternatively, you could tell me the particular aspects of the genetic code that you have a problem with, because that would save us a lot of time. There is of course a third option: you could avoid answering my questions again. Oh man... stop talking like this, or you will end up like mark24.... So if my proof isn't a proof for you LETS PLAY ! ....you can start to explain how the information arised - eg DNA code... go on!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY NOW. We do seem to be getting somewhere now (however gradually), so yes I am happier than I was - that wasn't too hard to do was it? Your little essay did actually put forward a number of points that are the kind of things I was looking for from you, so I'll try and extrapolate.
Or should I start also with RNA? Yes, let's do that shall we, considering one of the most popular theories about how life got started suggests that RNA molecules were the first catalysts and came before protein sythesis evolved. Different sequences of RNA have been shown to have a variety of functions, ranging from simple chemical cleavage to catalysing RNA replication. A theoretical proto-cell could be quite catalytically complex by just having a variety of different sequences of RNA. So where is the code (or information if you like) that is required for this RNA-only world to function? Let's also have a look at what is required for protein synthesis to evolve from this kind of situation:
I see no reson why the genetic code could not have evolved from the RNA-only world by random mutation. Can you point to the part which would absolutely require inteligence to get involved?
Oh man... stop talking like this, or you will end up like mark24.... If Mark and I are singing the same song it is because we are both equally unimpressed by your 'proof'. We probably have a similar patience threshold when it comes to people debating by analogy.You're obviously very impressed with message 226, but what it really boils down to is this: A computer cannot randomly create information without the intervention of inteligence, and therefore the DNA code couldn't have arisen by chance This is what I mean by debating by analogy. Unless you can demonstrate that a computer is exactly analogous to the kind of situation I am describing then your position is meaningless.
If it is not a proof, please show me an example of a proof. Thank you. As Crash has pointed out, science does not provide absolute proofs, just tentative answers. However, I suppose if you could truthfully say something like this:
"We know the exact conditions in which life is meant to have started, recreated them a great many times and we still haven't come close!" then you would go some way to challenging my position. As none of the statement is true, then your position is not supported.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
yxifix Inactive Member |
Sorry, I have no time at the moment... I'll answer as soon as possible.
Until then please learn more about mRNA, tRNA and rRNA. You'll need to have another solution in reserve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ooook! Member (Idle past 5815 days) Posts: 340 From: London, UK Joined: |
Take your time. Despite initial appearances I much prefer a properly researched and structured debate to a slanging match.
Until then please learn more about mRNA, tRNA and rRNA. You'll need to have another solution in reserve. Have no fear, I am hitting pubmed right now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: No, the REPLICATION of DNA is part of evolution. How the first DNA came about is not a part of evolution. Once you have an imperfect replicating system and differential reproductive success, then you have evolution.
quote: A bacteria acquires an enzyme that is able to digest nylong through the process of random mutation: http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm an entire population of flavobacterium were then made up of this one mutant since it is able to take advantage of an environment filled with nylon derivatives at a nylong plant. Therefore, we see one beneficial mutation that is an accident that then becomes part of an entire population through the effects of selection. Hence, evolution is able to increase information (new enzyme) in a population through accidents (random mutation). The environment was able to give the mutation meaning in the absence of an intelligent designer.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024