Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The power of accumulation in evolution is common sense!
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 1 of 53 (531967)
10-20-2009 5:30 PM


Probably the most common theme in the evolution vs. creation debate is the creationist argument that biological systems and units are too complex to have arisen by chance. A specific example argument along this line is how speciation is possible. The creationist would argue that the first rat must have evolved into the rat miraculously at the same time as another creature evolved into the rat in order for them to reproduce more rats. Another specific example along this line is the rise of specific structures like the eye and the wing. The creationist would argue that something like the eye would have required all the necessary components to assemble at the same time in order for the eye to exist. Both cases show a gross ignorance of the power of accumulation.
Why do creationists have such trouble understanding the concept of accumulation? It is literally in our faces every second of everyday of our lives.
Let's look at John Doe's life. John Doe didn't simply poof right into his mother's womb. He started out as a single cell. His physical being came into existence inside his mother's womb through the accumulation of cells through mitosis. After he was born, the knowledge of talking, walking, and eating didn't simply poof into his mind. He learned how to do those things one step at a time and through the power of accumulation he became a walking and talking toddler. As he grew up, his material possessions didn't simply poof into existence. Through time, his possessions accumulated. As he matured and pursued a career in engineering, the academic and life experiences required to go into this field didn't simply poof into existence. Rather, they accumulated through years of schooling and social interaction. He then got married and started a family of his own. His eventual family of 5 children didn't simply poof into existence. Rather, they came one by one, each came into existence through the same process as John did when he was in his mother's womb.
As a family of 7, they one day decided to take a vacation. They flew from Illinois to Virginia, took a train to Florida, took a bus to Miami, drove a rented car down to the Keys, walked to a ship yard, took a boat to half a mile out from an island, and swam the rest of the way to their vacation island. They got to the island through the power of accumulation of distance. They didn't simply decide to take a vacation on that island and poof their way there. Instead, they gained the distance inch by inch every step of the way. The means to which they took didn't simply poof into existence. The plane they flew in, the train and bus they rode in, the car they drove in, the shoes they walked in, the boat they rode in, and the flippers they swam with all were assembled piece by piece, all accumulated their parts into their whole.
By now, you should have the idea that practically everything in a person's life is gained through the power of accumulation. This nation's infrastructure didn't simply poof into existence. Every building, every house, every street, every sewer system, and every water pipe were all assembled piece by piece until they accumulated to what we have now. This nation's 350 million citizens didn't simply poof into existence. Instead, they arrived here through either immigration of natural birth until they accumulated to their number today.
Every system and every unit within that system that one can possibly fathom came about through the power of accumulation. Why on Earth, then, do creationists insist that the biological systems of the planet and the individual components of these systems were magically poofed into existence? Why do creationists have such trouble understanding the power of accumulation when it comes to biological diversity when everything else that we can directly observe came about through the power of accumulation?
PS - Ned the Nose's alter-ego's question of where to put this thread will not simply poof into existence. Rather, the question will come about through accumulating letters from the alphabet and arranged in a specific way. My answer of "where ever you think is best" will not simply poof into existence. Instead, the sentence will come about through the power of accumulation by me typing each letter at a time until a proper sentence is assembled.
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 7:30 PM Taz has replied
 Message 38 by Stagamancer, posted 01-08-2010 3:57 PM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 4 of 53 (531996)
10-20-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by slevesque
10-20-2009 7:30 PM


slevesque writes:
Conclusion: ... and so everything comes about by accumulation.
Oh wait, where did you ever prove that again ? I must've missed it in your text, Strawboy
That's your conclusion, not mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 7:30 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 10:34 PM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 6 of 53 (532044)
10-21-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by slevesque
10-20-2009 10:34 PM


Classic misinterpretation of what I said.
me writes:
Every system and every unit within that system that one can possibly fathom came about through the power of accumulation. Why on Earth, then, do creationists insist that the biological systems of the planet and the individual components of these systems were magically poofed into existence? Why do creationists have such trouble understanding the power of accumulation when it comes to biological diversity when everything else that we can directly observe came about through the power of accumulation?
There is a big difference between 'everything' and 'one can possibly fathom'. Admittedly, I sloppily used "everything else" (in blue) but the general idea should have been clear.
Also, the issue isn't about "everything comes about by accumulation". The issue is why do creationists have trouble understanding the concept of accumulation in biological evolution when they literally live with systems that came about through accumulation?
Do you enjoy lying? Because by trying to divert attention to an insignificant portion of my post, you effectively just lied to the more gullible readers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by slevesque, posted 10-20-2009 10:34 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by slevesque, posted 10-21-2009 12:41 AM Taz has not replied
 Message 8 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 5:48 PM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 9 of 53 (542121)
01-07-2010 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Sky-Writing
01-07-2010 5:48 PM


Sky writes:
Because your opinion is in opposition to what we see.
Ok, have you seen god poof everything into existence?
Added by edit.
Have you seen god poof anything at all into existence?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 5:48 PM Sky-Writing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Sky-Writing, posted 01-07-2010 8:05 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 37 of 53 (542265)
01-08-2010 1:58 PM


And here I was thinking this topic was a dead end. I kept wondering why it was a dead end since the power of accumulation keeps popping up in practically every debate on this forum.
Anyway, I was actually hoping more prominent creationists would join in the debate. Wasn't really expecting a troll to resurrect the thread.
PS I know nothing about geology or the grand canyon. You guys have fun with it.

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 40 of 53 (542317)
01-08-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Stagamancer
01-08-2010 3:57 PM


Re: On another note
Stagamancer writes:
This, of course, refers to the popular "irreducible complexity" argument of which we're all so fond. Anyway, this example has perhaps been used before, but your examples of John Doe got me thinking of our current society as an example of something that has gradually accumulated, yet exhibits some aspects of being irreducibly complex.
I'm getting the impression that you've misunderstood what irreducibly complex is.
The idea of irreducibly complex is that something can't function at all if a even a single part of it is removed. The problem with this idea is that IDists don't even consider all the possible alternative functions the thing can have after a part is removed. A mouse trap, after the pin is removed, could serve as a perfectly good tie holder. An internet-dependent economy/society will continue to exist in another form if the internet is removed. It will turn into a barter economy or something, who knows...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Stagamancer, posted 01-08-2010 3:57 PM Stagamancer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Stagamancer, posted 01-09-2010 4:21 PM Taz has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 46 of 53 (542377)
01-09-2010 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
01-09-2010 11:35 AM


Re: the law of accumulation of characteristics over time
First of all, damn I wish I could communicate like you. Your paraphrases of what I wrote are actually better than what I wrote.
RAZD writes:
Can you think of anything that has not been made or modified by an accumulation of characteristics\traits\features?
This is indeed the core question that I posed. I am just a little surprised that this question hasn't been made a big deal yet.
Curiously, I have heard this argument several times from people who don't understand evolution - it is one of the common arguments they make regarding macroevolution, the "hopeful monster" argument.
I must admit that I had to google "hopeful monster" to know what it was. Good to know there's an official name for this argument. Not so good to know this argument is still being used by mainstream creationist organizations everywhere. And to be blunt, how dishonest can they get?
But what is it a straw man of? I find many people make this claim when they don't like an argument, but they never show why it is a straw man -- what is the more complex issue that has been simplified, and what is thereby being refuted?
Since this topic will be closed soon by adminmoose, permit me to draw a parallel.
I think Slevesque wants us to believe that the creationists who make the arguments I portrayed (hopeful monster, eye, etc.) are on the fringe of creationist society, that they only make up a small minority of creationism. This is, of course, a complete lie. Mainstream creationists still use these arguments all the time.
This is similar to the gay rights debate. Christians continue to tell me that homophobia and anti-gay agendas only make up a small minority of christian society. And yet we know from all the referendums and legislations that these people don't make up a small minority of christianity. Mainstream churches continue to preach hate.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we keep getting hit with this delusion of "the quiet majority" thing. In both cases above, there are individuals who would like us to believe that the extreme only make up a small minority. Yet, we continue to see examples to the contrary.
I would say that the accumulation of characteristics over time is so universal that we can regard it as a natural law.
Can I get at least a reference when you're rich and famous for publishing this new law?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2010 11:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 48 of 53 (542387)
01-09-2010 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by slevesque
01-09-2010 2:16 PM


Re: the law of accumulation of characteristics over time
slevesque writes:
(The way TAZ expressed this in the OP also implied that therefore, everything could come through accumulation
No, I didn't. I thought I already made this clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by slevesque, posted 01-09-2010 2:16 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 01-10-2010 12:46 AM Taz has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 52 of 53 (542429)
01-10-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by slevesque
01-10-2010 12:46 AM


Re: the law of accumulation of characteristics over time
slevesque writes:
Of course it was clear, but as I had said at the time, this was the clear impression your text gave me. And I find that the way you expressed it in the OP still does, since you never changed it.
Even if I intended to literally say EVERYTHING came about through accumulation, it would still be an insignificant point in the OP. The point is that we are surrounded by things that came about through accumulation. By nitpicking a single word that I sloppily used, you've diverted attention away from the main point and toward an insignificant part of the OP.
It's like attending a concert but you couldn't get over the fact that the drummer's haircut is slightly lopsided.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by slevesque, posted 01-10-2010 12:46 AM slevesque has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024