|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The power of accumulation in evolution is common sense! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
slevesque writes:
That's your conclusion, not mine.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Classic misinterpretation of what I said.
me writes:
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. 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Sky writes:
Ok, have you seen god poof everything into existence? Because your opinion is in opposition to what we see. Added by edit. Have you seen god poof anything at all into existence? Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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: |
Stagamancer writes:
I'm getting the impression that you've misunderstood what irreducibly complex is. 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. 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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:
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.
Can you think of anything that has not been made or modified by an accumulation of characteristics\traits\features? 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
slevesque writes:
No, I didn't. I thought I already made this clear.
(The way TAZ expressed this in the OP also implied that therefore, everything could come through accumulation
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3291 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
slevesque writes:
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. 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. It's like attending a concert but you couldn't get over the fact that the drummer's haircut is slightly lopsided.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024