Locking
Pages
| Author | Topic: Locking |
|---|---|
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 07:57
Profile
Drew, my argument was for a willful agent, not a magical god. And I didn't claim that failure for them to produce an argument amounts to support for my beliefs. It highlights a Neo-Darwinistic lack though. 1) Living organisms have irreducibly complex structures and systems. 2) Irreducibly complex structures and systems are only observed to be made by a purposeful agency. 3) The alternative to purposeful agency is that which occurs in populations of living organisms gradually by means of recombination, mutations, and natural selection. 4) Organisms observed over millions of generations (e.g. bacteria) do not develop irreducibly complex systems. 5) The fossil record does not indicate introduction of irreducibly complex structures by gradual change. 6) Natural processes have not made the irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms. 7) Irreducibly complex structures and systems in living organisms are a result of purposeful agency. EDIT: Clarity [ Friday, January 11, 2008 08:00: Message edited by: Stillness ] Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 08:36
Profile
Homepage
For clarity, Stillness, if a supra-natural god isn't the willful agent / purposeful agency, then what is? Aliens? The High Evolutionary? Tyrannosaurs in F-14s? [ Friday, January 11, 2008 08:41: Message edited by: Unhasty ] -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central "Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said. Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 09:43
Profile
Stillness, I am impressed by your word count so far. Irreducible complexity is something that you must have been studying for a while now in order to get such a firm grasp. And I grant you that the fossil record, for reasons I explained, is incomplete and doesn't show a whole picture. It is much like putting together a picture puzzle after a bunch of 5 year olds and a vacuum cleaner have been in the room. My point about predictability, is that scientists can predict, and do find, fossil records that are unknown at the time of prediction. But still, you may be right. But if you are, none of it makes any sense at all. You claim that a being, either of the Santa Claus variety or a troupe of aliens, monitors and visits the planet on a regular basis in order to guide it along on some path or direction. Since we have evolved from single celled organisms (only) into multicellular organisms capable of maintaining complex systems, I would have to ask a simple question. To what gain? Do you propose this planet is some giant science experiment for an ultracreature? Because honestly, there is absolutely no reason for what you are proposing to have ever happened. Absolutely none. Wait, actually there is one. Say if another earth-like habitat was populated with beings which questioned how exactly they formed from single celled creatures all the way to multicellular (and apparently multi-dimensional,) they seeded a newly formed planet 4 billion years ago with a few strands of DNA and some lakes of amino acids. Yeah, that would make sense. Ultra creatures, yeah, that's the ticket. -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 09:51
Profile
You're always right if you make up your own definitions... :P -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 10:04
Profile
Studying fossils is frustrating but rewarding. A three part harmony (with mind bullets) Science people change their story when confronted with facts! And, for the record, it seems msnbc is in the ID camp. I mean, the proof is in the URL for all this science stuff. -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 10:27
Profile
Homepage
quote:This is not what the word "random" normally means. But now that you've defined it this way, let me object: how, by this definition, do we know that life is non-random? What specific guide or objective do we have that applies to life? quote:While our detailed models of planet formation are inexact at best, we basically know how the Earth was formed. But if you don't like that, take a star, perhaps (for best illustration) a star right before a supernova: it has layers (a hydrogen shell, then a helium one, then a carbon one, then an oxygen one, and so on), and there's a very definite specific pattern, so it's not random. There's not any real doubt about how a high-mass star is formed, evolves, and so on. (I know this because I calculated most of it for a final exam about a month ago. :P ) quote:I'm not sure why those are mutually exclusive. :P [ Friday, January 11, 2008 10:32: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7557
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 10:28
Profile
Why can't this just DIE!!!! -------------------- "Fear that which mortality has rejected" -Galvin Magnus Posts: 942 | Registered: Sunday, October 8 2006 07:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 10:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:If you don't like it, shut up and stop reading. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 10:49
Profile
quote:I find this objection to be without merit. Since you must, like Kel noted, take an active role in order to feel that angar, stop taking that role. If your objection is to the lack of other threads in which you would feel more competent to respond, feel free to start them yourself. In the meantime, understand that this thread is serving a purpose and has remained more or less congenial up to this point. Also, Stillness, did you really say that the earth is "prehistoric?" Please tell me that was a typo. -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Infiltrator
Member # 4256
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 11:20
Profile
quote:Bwaahhaha, you said it again and I can reply this time! Random has to do with the repeatability of something, not with intent. If you erode surfaces, with rain water 10000 times, and get a heart 10000 times, it isn't a (very) random process, even if you have no intent of making a heart. In the same way, if the intent of a process is to make a hat, but 3 out of 10 times the process accidentally makes a banana, the process is random. Items, numbers, shapes, etc, can not be random, only processes, functions, things that take input and output, can be random. -Edit; dangit, beat out again. But in response to Kel's question about purpose, I believe the Christian/Biblical answer would be that the objective is 'The glory of God'. Not something that's exactly provable/disprovable without a much broader perspective. So I still wouldn't think that random, even with the 'alternative' definition, is a correct word to use. [ Friday, January 11, 2008 11:32: Message edited by: Sticky ] -------------------- "Let's just say that if complete and utter chaos was lightning, he'd be the sort to stand on a hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing wet copper armour and shouting 'All gods are false'." Posts: 564 | Registered: Wednesday, April 14 2004 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 2759
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 11:26
Profile
Homepage
quote:Huh? You just said "Pi is not random, therefore a wilful agent has selected it". Random means something whose outcome is uncertain, which cannot be predicted. This has nothing to do with "wilful selection"; that is a big logical leap. What about unintended consequences? If no one has wilfully chosen an outcome, then according to our new axiom, it must be random. But the world doesn't work like that. If I say something to Peter that I think he will make him happy, but I am wrong and in fact he doesn't like it, then he will be sad. I didn't choose to make him sad. He didn't choose what I said to him. So no one wilfully chose to make Peter sad. So the outcome that Peter is sad was random? No. In fact I told Peter a joke about bees, not knowing that his entire family was recently struck down by a swarm of killer bees and are even now fighting for their lives in hospital. It was entirely predictable that he would be sad. But no one chose to make him sad. I do certainly believe that Pi is not random, because, as has previously been pointed out, it is entirely determinable. But I am not thereby logically forced to accept the existence of God. -------------------- Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4 Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 12:30
Profile
Homepage
It would be easier to follow your arguments if you distinguished between definitions, assumptions, facts and implications. Anyhow... quote:Depending on how you define "irreducibly complex", maybe. But remember that "irreducible complexity" can be created by evolution, using the following method: 1. Add a part. 2. Make it necessary. quote:Wrong. quote:Likely correct. quote:Wrong. quote:Most examples of irreducibly complex things that you people come up with are things like metabolic pathways, that don't fossilise. quote:You've nothing like proved this. quote:Or this. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. New Mac BoE Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
The Establishment
Member # 6
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 13:18
Profile
"*i (what do people call you?), all principles and laws need not be quantified (right-hand-rule for magnetic fields; rotary direction of a whirlpool; the Pauli Principle; Le Chatelier’s Principle; The Principle of Least Motion). Some of these cannot be quantified and all of them are expressed perfectly well verbally." Right-Hand-Rule is a convention and rotary direction of a whirlpool can be mathematically described with vectors. So yes, directions are well defined mathematically. As for Pauli: It is a natural consequence from the eigenfunctions of the Schrodinger equations. Fermions and Bosons are rigorously defined by their half and whole integer spin and as such lead to the mathematics of Fermi-Dirac or Bose-Einstein statistics. Le Chatleier's principle has a mathematical description of equilibria and a lot of work goes on with it in economics. So yes, this and Lenz's Law can be described by equations. The principle of least action is formulated through the minimization of the action integral in variational calculus. So yes, the path of least resistance and least motion are all backed up with mathematics and quantifiable. "When I think of information, I think of it how I described it before – the size of the smallest algorithm you’d need to generate an arrangement. This it totally unnecessary to get the point though. If you insist I’m pretty sure I put a link to calculate information on the first or second page of the regulation-complexity thread because you made this same argument. Calculate all you please, but both of my complexity arguments are qualitative. If you can’t deal with that, I don’t know what else to tell you. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree." You haven't answered the question of why qualitative arguments on complexity should matter. All of the things you mentioned before do indeed have a quantitative and calculable nature to them as well as a verbal one. I suspect you had only been exposed to the latter, but the other is indeed there. Your refusal to quantify stems from the fact that you can't. So here is the question: what meter do we use to measure if something is irreducibly complex? What objective criteria can we use to determine this? Are organized and aperiodic sufficient? Because people have provided counter examples to your arguments. "By the way, I don’t think I made claims about the scientific community. That’s why your argument is not well received by me. I’m actually quite skeptical of the scientific communities claims, as I am with all claims until they make sense to me. The scientific community is not infallible." You made claims that the scientific community sees specified complexity as a legitimate term and only can quote one individual. You can be skeptical of experts if you like, but like it or not, they have a pretty good track records. While science is not perfect or infallible, it gets it right 99% of the time. What you have to accept is that you are NOT an expert in this matter, and neither am I. Does that make either one of us right or wrong? No. However, not being an expert, you should not take so much stock in your own intuition because such things lead to erroneous results. So again, I ask you the original question you continue to dodge: Does quantum mechanics makes sense to you? Yes or no. Does it make sense to you? Yes or no. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 14:23
Profile
It's points 2 and 7 that are the non-sequitors. Given the VAST amount of the universe and even the Earth that we haven't observed, I think that the jury is still way, way out on whether we can make such statements with confidence. As Salmon alluded, we're missing a number of puzzle pieces due to the effects of the ages. Much of the evidence is being burned up and blown out the tail pipes of our cars as we speak. Willful agent may as well equal magical god - I think they're synonymous (for your purposes), so I just figured I'd call a spade a spade. What your answers sound like are the big cop out used when things are too complicated to be immediately explained. The fault then lies in our (current) inability to comprehend things fully, whether due to a lack of tools, formulae, evidence, or even raw mental ability. If we're keeping score, however, science has done a much better job of figuring out the nature of these things than religion, historically. I think you are giving current scientific authorities too much credit if you're going to assume that because they don't have a satisfying answer, you must be right. As I've mentioned, I think the jury is still out, so to speak, and if that's the case, why throw your hat so willingly into the ring with less compelling evidence? [ Friday, January 11, 2008 14:26: Message edited by: Drew ] Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 15:18
Profile
Thanks for all the responses gang. There are a few interesting points I’d like to kick around with you all, like my definition of randomness, irreducible complexity, and what’s up with the bacteria. What I would most like to see though is a response to my request. Picking apart my arguments is nice and fun, but where is the alternative? Can some reasonable person please show the logical premises that support the conclusion that natural selection is responsible for all increase in complexity in biological systems. I’m just not willing to discuss with someone that, not only hasn’t explored their position logically, but is unwilling to. Maybe I’m a irrational creationist that wouldn’t know information from a hole in the wall, but at least I have an argument. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 15:20
Profile
Homepage
quote:Your argument is circular, because the concept of an "objective" implies an intelligent agent to form that objective. Life performs certain functions, but so do rocks. That doesn't mean that either has an "objective". Whatever goals we see in it are of our own creation. quote:Shifting ground again, I see. We don't know the origin of life either (in fact, we know less about it than we know about the origin of Earth), so by your own admission, your argument doesn't apply to it! quote:I can't do that until you've decided what you mean when you say "complexity", so that I can determine whether, by the definition you end up using, any increase in complexity in biological systems has ever actually occurred. Putting that aside, natural selection doesn't cause changes in individual organisms; it's just what allows individuals with beneficial mutations to survive and reproduce once they occur. (More precisely, natural selection simply is the survival and reproduction of individuals with beneficial mutations.) If you're interested in the actual mechanisms by which mutations can occur, I'd suggest taking a course in genetics -- there are a lot of them and some are quite elaborate. Gene duplication is one of the most important, because it creates a new, redundant copy of a gene in the genome, which can mutate without harm to the organism carrying it. Nearly all known genes have descended from other genes in this way, and they often end up carrying out quite different functions from their "ancestors". quote:Given that he's previously expressed support for wacky fringe theories of cosmology, I don't think forcing him to admit that he doesn't believe in quantum mechanics will gain us much. [ Friday, January 11, 2008 15:23: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 16:06
Profile
Thuryl, use your definition of complexity. You’re more qualified than me. I’m sure that you think dolphins are more complex than blue-green algae and that the latter is more ancient than the former. That is the general pattern right. I’m fairly sure that’s basic and accepted Neo-Darwinistic teaching – evolution doesn’t have to yield more complexity, but over billions of years it has. Show me the logic. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 16:18
Profile
Homepage
quote:Then you're surer of that than I am. [ Friday, January 11, 2008 16:23: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 16:45
Profile
Homepage
I'm not a biologist, but I'll try to put forward some positive evidence for evolution. First off, fossils. As you said earlier, Darwin commented on the lack of intermediate fossils. Since evolution implies continuous change, it predicts intermediate fossils. It's that sort of testable prediction that puts evolution in science - you can go and dig up more fossils and see whether the seeming lack of intermediates is real or just because few fossils were known. 150 years later, the answer is clear - there are lots of intermediate fossils. For example, courtesy of wikipedia, known hominin species as of Darwin's time, and every 50 years until now: 1850 1900 1950 2002 Notice that 1850, there are only a few species known, and the fossil evidence isn't really there. However, as time goes by, the number of known intermediates increases, as predicted by evolution, until there is a clear line of intermediates. The same sort of thing is true for other species. Secondly, there's evidence from DNA. As Thuryl said, one way that complexity can increase is when a copying error results in the duplication of a gene. Once there are two or more copies, mutations in one copy are less likely to hard the carrier, since there's a functional copy left over. These mutations can accumulate over long periods, and after several mutations have taken place on the copy of a gene, it can end up taking on a different function. Of course, mutations leading to viable new genes are rare, so this theory predicts that typical DNA contains many damaged, nonfunctional copies of existing genes. This has also been experimentally verified. It's 1:30am, so I'll stop after one more thing. Humans are thought to be closely related to chimpanzees. However, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, whereas chimps have 24. It's unlikely that a complete chromosome could show up in the timeframe available, or that a chromosome could have been lost and still produced something viable. One possibility is that a common ancestor of chimps and humans had 24 pairs, but in the path to humans, two chromosomes got joined together. It so happens that there is a way to tell whether this is the case: Chromosomes aren't uniform along their length. At each end is a long and highly recognisable sequence of repeating bases, many copies of the sequence TTAGGG. However, one human chromosome has something odd near the middle - a lot of TTAGGGs, followed immediately by a lot of CCCTAAs. (CCCTAA is what appears on the other strand from a TTAGGG). This is very clear evidence that a human chromosome is formed from the joining of two existing chromosomes, as predicted by evolution and not by anything else. There are a lot more things like that. And note that these examples aren't about what might be, or picking holes in other theories, but are successful predictions, and explanations of things that otherwise make no sense. -------------------- Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram. New Mac BoE Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 17:48
Profile
Homepage
quote:Specified complexity, which has yet to be rigorously defined, must be a subset of complexity. Complexity is also not rigorously defined, though, because it really has no place in evolution. It just isn't important that life becomes more or less complex, whatever that means. Common descent only requires that various species descended from common ancestral species, which in turn descended from more remote ancestral species all the way back to the origin of life. Let's move back to something simpler. If cells had no conservation and repair mechanisms for their DNA, they would mutate a lot. Leaving aside all questions of whether these mutations would be survivable, this random process could eventually lead to the production of any arbitrary DNA sequence. If you accept this premise, then you must concede that common descent and evolution are possible. Not plausible, not true, but possible. Also, because this process can create any DNA sequence, information theory and complexity arguments are largely irrelevant. On a genetic level, we're talking about C, A, T, and G in varying numbers and arrangements. That's all. —Alorael, who fully realizes that this argument does not strongly support evolution. It's a step, though, and he's really not sure if you agree with it or not. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 18:08
Profile
Homepage
quote:Hopefully this thread will meet the same fate as "Omaha Mall Shooting." Pitting Christians vs. Atheists in a secular debate is complete foolery. -------------------- I dub thee... Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 18:10
Profile
Is there some correlation between complexity and cellular combinations? If so, it would hardly be surprising that over time you would find that multicellular things developed where before they were just spatially juxtaposed. I guess, like some other folks, I'm just a bit stymied by this idea of complexity. It seems to be fashioned of gossamer. Edit - Excalibur, your mind seems made up, yet you are unwilling to proffer your opinions. Do you believe that the differences discussed here are based solely on acceptance of the Bible as absolute authority on all things? [ Friday, January 11, 2008 18:15: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ] -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Agent
Member # 8030
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 18:44
Profile
Homepage
quote:My opinions have been presented in an egregious and ill-mannered fashion in topics past. Yes, my faith is solid, but I've learned better than to repeatedly try to yield it on the same people (Even though my actions were sheer evil and stupidity). quote:Rather, I'm confused in your regard to asking such things. I am of the inclination that the answer to the said question is blatant. I apologize for calling this foolery, for surely something good can come out of it. [ Friday, January 11, 2008 18:45: Message edited by: Excalibur ] -------------------- I dub thee... Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 18:50
Profile
Excalibur, until you learn to use the simplest language possible, just don't post. It is wonderful that you are expanding your vocab, but quite honestly it is painful to read. No one talks that way. :) -------------------- Synergy, et al - "I don't get it." Argon - "I'm at a loss for words..." Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 7472
|
written Friday, January 11 2008 19:36
Profile
Homepage
I lack any misfortune with such tongue. Besides, you might learn something. And Salmon, how do you know that other people don't speak in similar patterns? Have you spoken with every English-speaking person on this planet and determined that Excalibur is a singular anomaly? Or are you just guessing? [ Friday, January 11, 2008 19:38: Message edited by: Nioca ] -------------------- Hz'ii'zt a'iiencf coxnen a'bn'z'p pahuen yzpa'zuhb be'tt'phukh'kn az'ii'ova mxn't bhcizvi'fl? Nioca's Citadel - A resource for BoA graphics and scripts, as well as my scenarios. In Last Hope's Light RP - The end is near... Posts: 2686 | Registered: Friday, September 8 2006 07:00 |
