A timeline of the first life

LucidFlight · **#361** by **LucidFlight** » Dec 30, 2013 2:04 pm

Bribase wrote:
Coroama wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Wrong, it IS relevant, because it demonstrates that supernaturalists cannot even make up their minds about which of their multiple invented magic men was purportedly responsible.

1. Its not relevant to the topic, and
2. Its not relevant to my argument for design.

You are yet to make an argument for design, Coarama. So far you have made an argument for "I can't believe it came about naturally" And an argument for "You're not currently able to explain how it happened naturally." Neither of which support your assertion one bit.

ElDiablo · **#362** by **ElDiablo** » Dec 30, 2013 2:09 pm

Coroama wrote:
Good luck with that one, given the manner in which supernaturalists construct their apologetics deliberately to avoid such scrutiny.

40k denominations neither means 40k different doctrines. It means simply 40k denominations. Nothing wrong with that.

And those divisions can be pretty serious considering that they deal with the "truths" of the bible.
For example, the Catholic Church accepts evolution as a fact. This is in contention to all the crap you've been spreading here and justifying it with the truth of the bible. It's not a small reconciliation that you have on your hands with your brethren.
But of course, you'll retreat to "we all agree on a designer" which brings into question why one should believe in any doctrine then?

Darwinsbulldog · **#363** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 30, 2013 3:45 pm

ElDiablo wrote:
Coroama wrote:
Good luck with that one, given the manner in which supernaturalists construct their apologetics deliberately to avoid such scrutiny.

40k denominations neither means 40k different doctrines. It means simply 40k denominations. Nothing wrong with that.

And those divisions can be pretty serious considering that they deal with the "truths" of the bible.
For example, the Catholic Church accepts evolution as a fact. This is in contention to all the crap you've been spreading here and justifying it with the truth of the bible. It's not a small reconciliation that you have on your hands with your brethren.
But of course, you'll retreat to "we all agree on a designer" which brings into question why one should believe in any doctrine then?

Actually, the Catholic church does not accept evolution as a fact. It accepts that the "meat" of a human can evolve, but god creates the "soul", and magically transports it without support of the "meat" at his own pleasure.
If we take a non-theistic understanding of the body-dependent "soul", then what is actually being talked about is personality, which is nature and nurture, and so the soul too is of material/natural origin just as the meat is.
The Vatican accepts the meat because it takes away [their argument] the "problem of evil". All very neat. :lol:

ElDiablo · **#364** by **ElDiablo** » Dec 30, 2013 5:33 pm

Yeah, the soul which Darwin doesn't address in the TOE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_C ... _evolution

"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."[48]
In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
"Theories of evolution which, because of the philosophies which inspire them, regard the spirit either as emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a simple epiphenomenon of that matter, are incompatible with the truth about man."

Oldskeptic · **#365** by **Oldskeptic** » Dec 30, 2013 5:38 pm

Coroama wrote:
btw. i don't indeed bother to waste my time to examine closely your paper. Of course its absolutely nonsense, and does not answer the question of where coded information comes from correctly, ( it cannot be through natural selection ) . Why ? Because that mechanism cannot work . Intelligence is the only mechanism. Period.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/da ... racle.html

I shall argue that it is not enough to know how life's immense structural complexity arose; we must also account for the origin of biological information. As we shall see, scientists are still very far from solving this fundamental conceptual puzzle.

A perfect example of deceptive quote mining. Here's the full paragraph

In the coming chapters I shall argue that it is not enough to know how life's immense structural complexity arose; we must also account for the origin of biological information. As we shall see, scientists are still very far from solving this fundamental conceptual puzzle. Some people rejoice in such ignorance, imagining that it leaves room for a miraculous creation. However, it is the job of science to solve mysteries without recourse to divine intervention. Just because scientists are still uncertain how life began does not mean life cannot have had a natural origin.

Calilasseia · **#366** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 30, 2013 6:07 pm

Coroama wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:Wrong, it IS relevant, because it demonstrates that supernaturalists cannot even make up their minds about which of their multiple invented magic men was purportedly responsible.

1. Its not relevant to the topic,

It IS relevant to your assertion that a Bronze Age magic man was responsible for the universe and its contents, because there are millions of other supernaturalists around the planet who assert that a different magic man was responsible (or in the case of the 800 million Hindus, a veritable galaxy of magic men). Why are they all purportedly "wrong", and you purportedly "right"? Why is YOUR choice of magic man purportedly the "right" choice? Just because your myhtology says so? Well all of the other supernaturalists could say exactly the same. What makes THEIR choice of mythology purportedly "wrong", and YOUR choice purportedly "right"? Do you have an answer to this, other than blind assertions?

For that matter, millions of supernaturalists who choose your mythology, disagree with you about what that mythology is purportedly telling us. The two biggest denominations, namely the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church, have no problem with evolution. Why are they all purportedly "wrong", and you purportedly "right"? What substantive reason do you have for asserting this? All you have here is blind assertions that you're right and the rest of the world is wrong. Got something of substance to present here?

Coroama wrote:2. Its not relevant to my argument for design.

Yes it is. Because you have nothing other than blind assertions to the effect that your choice of magic man, and your choice of "interpretation" of the relevant mythology, is purportedly the "right" choice. Why are those millions of other supernaturalists supposedly "wrong"? Do you have anything other than blind assertions to offer here?

Likewise, why are all those other fellow adherents of your mythology, who have no problem with evolution,supposedly "wrong"? Got something other than blind assertions to offer?

Coroama wrote:
Which means that you can't assert that your pet choice of magic man was responsible, unless you can provide real evidence that all of those other supernaturalists, who think their choice of magic man was responsible, are all wrong.

Even if there are 40k denominations, they still all worship the God of the bible.

But the whole point is that they cannot make up their minds amongst each other what their magic man is telling them. And they ALL point to the same mythology to try and support their assertions on this matter. Why are all these other people purportedly "wrong", and you purportedly "right" here? Do you have something other than blind assertions to present in support of this posture of yours?

Coroama wrote:
Good luck with that one, given the manner in which supernaturalists construct their apologetics deliberately to avoid such scrutiny.

40k denominations neither means 40k different doctrines. It means simply 40k denominations.

Wrong. ALL of them erect different assertions about your magic man, and ALL of them claim that the same mythology purportedly "justifies" these assertions. Once again, why is YOUR choice of "interpretation" of said mythology purportedly "right", and all the others purportedly "wrong"? You don't have an answer to this, do you?

Coroama wrote:Nothing wrong with that.

If you can't see why 40,000 different "interpretations" of the same mythology, ALL claiming to be the "right" interpretation, casts serious doubt upon that mythology as a source of substantive knowledge, you really need to sit down and think long and hard about this question.

Coroama wrote:
Coroama wrote:I simply say : Evidence in nature leads to identify design.

Blind assertion and nothing more.

Your non-answer is duly noted. Once again, do you have something other than blind assertions, not to mention snide condescension? Do you have even one substantive reason for your choice?

Coroama wrote:Your advanced indoctrination into naturalism

Oh please, pull the other one, it's got fucking bells on. Since when did any of the assertions of your mythology enjoy empirical support? The only one betraying signs of "indoctrination" here is you, because all you have here is "my magic man is real because my favourite mythology says so".

Coroama wrote:and inhability to recognize when something must be designed

What about YOUR inability to answer a direct test on this matter? Which of those rocks is "designed", and how can you tell? Until you can answer this question with a substantive answer, your assertions about "design" are discardable, because you can't even present sound reasons for "design" when presented with a known instance of design. You've failed abjectly to provide a single piece of substance in this regard. If you can't even distinguish a known designed entity from its surroundings, when challenged to do so, then your assertions on the subject are worthless.

Coroama wrote:
One you can't even support with respect to human design, when confronted with some rocks.

Irrelevant counter argument.

More bluster and evasion from you. You've been presented with a known instance of a designed entity, and challenged to distinguish it from the non-designed entities surrounding it. Your failure to do so renders all your apologetics about "design" null and void. If you can't even pick out a known designed entity from a selection of objects, why should anyone treat your assertions about "design" in the biosphere as anything other than made up shit?

You have nothing here but blind assertions, snide condescension and duplicitous discoursive evasion, not to mention a track record of mendacious quote mining. Your entire apologetics reek of ignorant charlatanism.

ElDiablo · **#367** by **ElDiablo** » Dec 30, 2013 6:58 pm

Oldskeptic wrote:
Coroama wrote:
btw. i don't indeed bother to waste my time to examine closely your paper. Of course its absolutely nonsense, and does not answer the question of where coded information comes from correctly, ( it cannot be through natural selection ) . Why ? Because that mechanism cannot work . Intelligence is the only mechanism. Period.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/da ... racle.html

I shall argue that it is not enough to know how life's immense structural complexity arose; we must also account for the origin of biological information. As we shall see, scientists are still very far from solving this fundamental conceptual puzzle.

A perfect example of deceptive quote mining. Here's the full paragraph

In the coming chapters I shall argue that it is not enough to know how life's immense structural complexity arose; we must also account for the origin of biological information. As we shall see, scientists are still very far from solving this fundamental conceptual puzzle. Some people rejoice in such ignorance, imagining that it leaves room for a miraculous creation. However, it is the job of science to solve mysteries without recourse to divine intervention. Just because scientists are still uncertain how life began does not mean life cannot have had a natural origin.

I wish there was a god and lying was a sin.

Coroama · **#368** by **Coroama** » Dec 31, 2013 12:03 am

Calilasseia wrote:
It IS relevant to your assertion that a Bronze Age magic man was responsible for the universe and its contents

This topic is not about WHICH God might be the true one. If you want to discuss this, please open a new thread in the theism section. This topic is about A timeline of the first life. You as moderator should be the first one to be zealous to keep posts on topic...... :roll:

Coroama wrote:
Yes it is. Because you have nothing other than blind assertions

My argument goes as follows :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.
2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.
Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

Coroama wrote:Your advanced indoctrination into naturalism

Oh please, pull the other one, it's got fucking bells on. Since when did any of the assertions of your mythology enjoy empirical support?

Same question goes to you : Where is your empirical support that the first life had a natural cause ?

"my magic man is real because my favourite mythology says so".

Nope. Its because complexity in nature leads to a deduce design.

Coroama wrote:
What about YOUR inability to answer a direct test on this matter? Which of those rocks is "designed", and how can you tell?

Your argument is misleading. Intelligence can monkey the appearance of a rock. But nature cannot monkey the appearance of complexity and design. And much less generate coded, complex, specified information.BTW. it would be a doubtful argument, if the appearance of design would be occasional. But we can see all over, and recognize the amazing intelligence of a powerful creator, which did setup the universe to host life. Despite the assertions of naturalists, the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, the cell, etc. has NOT been debunked.

DaveD · **#369** by **DaveD** » Dec 31, 2013 12:20 am

Coroama wrote:My argument goes as follows :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

You need to demonstrate this, rather than simply assert it, otherwise

2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.
Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

falls flat on its arse.

Bribase · **#370** by **Bribase** » Dec 31, 2013 12:50 am

Coroama wrote:

My argument goes as follows :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

This is nonsense. Complexity is not a measure of design.

Example: Two walls

A naturally occuring sea wall:

A man made brick wall:

Both act as walls. The naturally occuring one has multiple, non uniform parts, often interlocking. Removing one part can make the entire structure weaker or destory that section entirely.

The man-made one is made of uniform parts that follow simple mathematical rules. Removing any one part does not affect the overall structure.

2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.
Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

This is a rdiculous measure of whether something is designed, even in the absence of my example. Were things more designed in the middle ages? Will things be less designed by god in the future when we make more complicated things?

Bear in mind as well that you are proposing a way of discerning between things that are desiged and things that are not designed. Should we assume that your god authored living cells but had no part in the manufacture of the rest of the universe given it's relative simplicity?

hackenslash · **#371** by **hackenslash** » Dec 31, 2013 1:14 am

Coroama wrote:My argument goes as follows :

You don't have an argument, just ignorance.

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

Define 'complex'.

Your argument is misleading. Intelligence can monkey the appearance of a rock. But nature cannot monkey the appearance of complexity and design.

You clearly miss the point of the question. It isn't about 'monkeying the appearance of nature'. One of those rocks is a tool, designed for a purpose, yet you, with your amazing metric for design (that you still can't specify), cannot identify which one. This fucks your position up the arse with a cheese-covered stick wrapped in razor-wire.

And much less generate coded, complex, specified information.

Dealt with this bollocks already. Re-asserting it doesn't make it any less fuckwitted.

BTW. it would be a doubtful argument, if the appearance of design would be occasional. But we can see all over, and recognize the amazing intelligence of a powerful creator, which did setup the universe to host life.

Ah, back to preaching, is it?

Despite the assertions of naturalists, the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, the cell, etc. has NOT been debunked.

Yes it has, not least because, if you knock out one of the genes involved in flagellar synthesis, it stops. However, if you knock out a second gene, synthesis returns.

Face it, you're so far out of your depth here that throwing you an anvil would be an act of mercy.

Coroama · **#372** by **Coroama** » Dec 31, 2013 3:22 am

DaveD wrote:
Coroama wrote:My argument goes as follows :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

You need to demonstrate this, rather than simply assert it, otherwise
2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.
Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

falls flat on its arse.

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/ ... ce-of-god/

Premise 1 is true because to deny it would be tantamount to saying the more complex something is,the LESS it requires an intelligence (which would go against our everyday reasoning).
Premise 2 is true since even the simplest possible cell would be more complex than an entire modern city.

This argument does not commit a false analogy because …

1) While it is true that life has the ability to reproduce and man-made designs do not,the first self-replicating cell would have had to acquire it`s incredible complexity WITHOUT the ability to reproduce.
2) The very fact that life forms even have the ability to reproduce shows how much more complex biological complexity is compared to man-made design.

Life is self sustaining,self repairing AND self reproducing.

Complexity WITHOUT order versus complexity WITH order:
A huge jumbled pile of wooden logs would be an example of complexity WITHOUT order whereas DNA would be an example of complexity WITH order.

Order WITHOUT specified complexity versus order WITH specified complexity:

1) A distinction needs to be made between repetitive order (such as in
crystals) and specified complexity (such as in DNA).
2) Crystals form as a result of built in properties reacting to natural laws. There are no inherent chemical properties of matter that would cause life to come from non-life but there ARE inherent chemical properties of matter that would prevent life coming from non-life.

The argument from complexity cannot be used against God because …

1) It only applies to things that actually began to exist. We know that biological complexity began to exist.Therefore,biological complexity requires an explanation.

2) God is not complex. Something is only complex when it has a high degree of order among many parts. Theists do not define God as having a high degree of order among many parts. God is a spirit who is not made of what he made.

Calilasseia · **#373** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 31, 2013 4:06 am

Coroama wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:It IS relevant to your assertion that a Bronze Age magic man was responsible for the universe and its contents

This topic is not about WHICH God might be the true one.

You don't get to dictate the flow of posting here. Learn this lesson quickly.

Furthermore, since YOU are the one asserting that YOUR choice of magic man is purportedly responsible for the universe and its contents, the question remains pertinent, namely, why is YOUR choice purportedly "right", and that of other supernaturalists with different choices purportedly "wrong"? Because until you can provide something other than blind assertions on this subject, YOUR assertions are discardable.

Now, are you going to stop pissing about dodging awkward questions with fake excuses, and deliver some substance here?

Coroama wrote:If you want to discuss this, please open a new thread in the theism section.

Once again, you don't get to dictate the thread contents. If pertinent questions arise from your assertions, then YOU are the one required to address them, not evade them with fake excuses.

Coroama wrote:This topic is about A timeline of the first life.

And unlike you, I delivered a substantive answer, based upon verifiable empirical science. To which you responded with duplicitous quote mines and worthless creationist apologetics. As a result of this, no one here thinks you are in a position to lecture the rest of us on discoursive conduct, given that your posts contain multiple instances of duplicity in this regard.

Coroama wrote:You as moderator should be the first one to be zealous to keep posts on topic......

I leave zealotry to mythology fanboys.

Coroama wrote:
Yes it is. Because you have nothing other than blind assertions

Congratulations, you found the smilies. Want a cookie?

Coroama wrote:My argument goes as follows :

Ahem, blind assertions aren't "arguments". Learn this.

Coroama wrote:1) The more complex something is, the more likely it is a product of design.

Even if we ignore the fact that you don't have a definition of "complexity", let alone a measure for it, and even if we use crude and naive notions of "complexity" in the absence of any rigorous definitions, your assertion is still refuted wholesale by any of a number of natural phenomena. Such as this:

Here's two papers covering the phenomenon:

[1] A Theory Of Growth By Differential Sedimentation, With Application To Snowflake Formation by C. D. Westbrook, R. C. Ball, P. R. Field & A. J Heymsfield, Physical Reviews E, 70(2): 021403 (25th August 2004) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Westbrook et al, 2004 wrote:A simple model of irreversible aggregation under differential sedimentation of particles in a fluid is presented. The structure of the aggregates produced by this process is found to feed back on the dynamics in such a way as to stabilise both the exponents controlling the growth rate, and the fractal dimension of the clusters produced at readily predictable values. The aggregation of ice crystals to form snowflakes is considered as a potential application of the model.

[2] Observations And Numerical Simulations Of The Origin And Development Of Very Large Snowflakes by R. Paul Lawson, Ronald E. Stewart & Leigh J. Angus, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 55(21): 3209-3229 (1st November 1998) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Lawson et al, 1998 wrote:ABSTRACT

The Canadian Atlantic Storms Program (CASP II) field experiment was conducted near St. John’s, Newfoundland, Canada, during January–March 1992, and it focused on the nature of winter storms. Analyses of CASP II aircraft, surface, satellite, and radar observations collected during an intensive study of the origin and
development of 9 mm h-1 precipitation containing 4–5-cm diameter snowflakes are compared in this article with results of the MM5 (mesoscale) and Mitchell (microphysical) models. MM5 simulations of the thermal, kinematic, and bulk microphysical fields were in good agreement with the observations; this comparison provided the basis for extending the spatial and temporal scales of the aircraft observations to a larger-scale domain using the model results. The Mitchell analytical–numerical model was used to improve the understanding of the microphysical processes that led to the development of the very large snowflakes. A synthesis of results using the different techniques leads to the conclusion that the snowflakes originated as 3–5-mm dendritic crystals in an area of weak convective instability at 5 km and were transported downwind in a strongly sheared airflow. The dendrites aggregated, fell into an existing snowzone (supported in some regions by vertical motion with velocities ranging from 0.2–0.6 m s-1), and continued to descend along a deep, downward sloping layer with temperatures near 0°C. Rapid aggregation occurred in the near 0°C region in particular and without appreciable particle breakup. An exponential fit to the particle size distribution in the region of very large snowflakes had a slope parameter on the order of 100 m-1.

I'll let everyone else have fun reading about the differential equations in the first of those papers.

So even at the start of your apologetics, you have severe problems to overcome.

Coroama wrote:2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.

Again, merely asserted to be the case. Seen the actual working parts of a Pentium CPU have you? Here's a photograph of the internals of one:

Know how many parts are in there? In the case of the last single-core Itanium 2 versions, there were 592 million transistors. That was the state of the art back in 2004, using 130 nanometre epitaxial beam electron etching. However, Intel and AMD have moved on since then. The current record for an 8-core Itanium Poulson chip, manufactured using 22 nanometre epitaxial beam etching, is 3.1 billion transistors.

In the case of graphics processing units, the most complex GPU produced to date is the GK 110 Kepler chip, used in GeForce graphics cards. This has over 7 billion transistors, manufactured using 28 nm epitaxial beam etching.

In the case of memory chips, the transistor count is even higher. If you have in your pocket a 16 GB flash drive, that contains 64 billion transistors.

So even this second assertion of yours is debatable, given the available data.

Coroama wrote:Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

Since your first two assertions have serious question marks attached thereto, so does your conclusion, even if we ignore the vast mountains of evidence from evolutionary biology refuting your apologetics from another direction.

Coroama wrote:
Coroama wrote:Your advanced indoctrination into naturalism

Oh please, pull the other one, it's got fucking bells on. Since when did any of the assertions of your mythology enjoy empirical support?

Same question goes to you : Where is your empirical support that the first life had a natural cause ?

Try all those papers from the relevant research field I've presented here, to which your response was to indulge in quote mining and apologetics.You know, those papers demonstrating that relevant chemical reactions work?

Coroama wrote:
"my magic man is real because my favourite mythology says so".

Nope. Its because complexity in nature leads to a deduce design.

Bullshit. Only those ideologicallly predisposed to try and fit everything to a magic man assert this. The evidence, on the other hand, says your magic man is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. How many of those 231 papers do I need to bring here? Oh wait, I've already brought over a dozen of them, and your response consisted of dishonest quote mining and apologetics.

Coroama wrote:
What about YOUR inability to answer a direct test on this matter? Which of those rocks is "designed", and how can you tell?

Your argument is misleading.

No it isn't. YOU are the one asserting that you can determine if something is "designed", yet when faced with a direct test of your assertion, you run away and erect fake excuses.

Once again, we have here a known instance of design, therefore if your assertions about design are correct, it should be piss easy for you not only to pick out the correct rock, but tell us why it's the correct rock. If you can't do this, then all your assertions about "design" are worthless.

Coroama wrote:Intelligence can monkey the appearance of a rock. But nature cannot monkey the appearance of complexity and design.

O RLY?

Those snowflakes above are laughing at you.

Oh, wait, that's precisely what evolutionary processes do- mimic "design". Indeed, human beings are using evolutionary processes to "design" a range of artefacts. Some very hard-nosed businesses are spending serious R&D money on this, because scientists have demonstrated that the processes work, despite fatuous creationist assertions to the contrary.

Coroama wrote:And much less generate coded, complex, specified information.

Stripped out the superfluous creationist bullshit. There is simply information. Information is simply the data available with respect to the current state of a multi-state system. Every rigorous treatment of information is predicated on this.

Coroama wrote:BTW. it would be a doubtful argument, if the appearance of design would be occasional. But we can see all over, and recognize the amazing intelligence of a powerful creator

Poppycock. The biosphere is littered with instances where, if your magic man is real, then your magic man was an incompetent klutz. Indeed, the whole transcription process is a rococo piece of chemical bureacracy that no genuinely intelligent "designer" would cobble together. It wastes much of the energy budget of the cell transcribing stretches of DNA into RNA strands that will never be used, and which are discarded for recycling afterwards. In the case of some transcribed genes, as much as 99% of the RNA generated is wasted. So much for "intelligent design".

Coroama wrote:which did setup the universe to host life.

Except of course that more than 99% of the observable universe cannot support life as we know it, because that 99%+is a vacuum with an ambient temperature of just 4 kelvins.

Coroama wrote:Despite the assertions of naturalists

Ahem, we have the experimental results. No "assertions" involved. We leave those to Magic Man fanboys.

Coroama wrote:the irreducible complexity of the flagellum, the cell, etc. has NOT been debunked.

Bullshit. Hermann Joseph Müller knew that this was a crock before Behe was born. Oh, and Behe's assertions about the flagellum have been busted. I'm aware of 15 scientific papers covering such topics as homologies, and experimental manipulations of the flagellum that drive a tank battalion through Behe's assertions. Game over.

MrFungus420 · **#374** by **MrFungus420** » Dec 31, 2013 5:23 am

Coroama wrote:My argument goes as follows :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

Prove it.

Since your entire "argument" hinges on this premise, if you can't prove it, you have NO argument.

MrFungus420 · **#375** by **MrFungus420** » Dec 31, 2013 5:31 am

Coroama wrote:
DaveD wrote:
Coroama wrote:My argument goes as follows :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.

You need to demonstrate this, rather than simply assert it, otherwise
2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.
Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

falls flat on its arse.

http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/ ... ce-of-god/

Premise 1 is true because to deny it would be tantamount to saying the more complex something is,the LESS it requires an intelligence (which would go against our everyday reasoning).

Which was disproven by the example given above with the two walls. The natural wall is far more complex than the man-made wall.

And, this is begging the question also. It is ASSUMING that living things MUST have been designed. Without that assumption (which is the conclusion), you cannot come up with the first premise.

ElDiablo · **#376** by **ElDiablo** » Dec 31, 2013 5:57 am

Coroama wrote:

My argument goes as follows :

1) The more complex something is,the more likely it is a product of design.
2) Biological complexity is more complex than all man-made design.
Therefore,biological complexity is a product of design.

What you have with your first premise is a conclusion. And it has been shown that something that's complex can arise naturally according to the laws of physics without being the product of design, A snowflake appears more complex than a drop of water. Therefore your first premise is false. Strike 1.
Your second premise has shown to be false too. Strike 2.
Therefore you haven't supported your conclusion. Strike 3.

Dude, give it up. Your posts fail at science and they fail at logic, go pimp your arguments to third graders.

Goldenmane · **#377** by **Goldenmane** » Dec 31, 2013 7:21 am

Design is the product of complexity, not the other way around.

Which is to say, we have the capacity to design due to the complexity of our brains, which are evolved physical structures.

We also have the capacity to make dumbfuck mistakes, like thinking things exactly backwards. This is also due to that complexity.

Ask any conjuror - children, with less complex (less differentiated) brains are far harder to fool than adults.

So, we might look at something complex and speculate as to its potential to design, but it is ludicrous to speculate from that that it was designed.

Darwinsbulldog · **#378** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Dec 31, 2013 8:17 am

Goldenmane wrote:Design is the product of complexity, not the other way around.

Which is to say, we have the capacity to design due to the complexity of our brains, which are evolved physical structures.

We also have the capacity to make dumbfuck mistakes, like thinking things exactly backwards. This is also due to that complexity.

Ask any conjuror - children, with less complex (less differentiated) brains are far harder to fool than adults.

So, we might look at something complex and speculate as to its potential to design, but it is ludicrous to speculate from that that it was designed.

Complexity does allow more options in the designoid process of natural selection. A gene duplication [or even genome] duplication event allows subfunctionalisation in one of the duplicates, while the other gene carries on with its original function.

This process could go right back to the origin of life ie the RNA world. The duplication of billions and billions of RNA molecules -[including the evolution of some of them into a ribozyme function] with not perfect copying would lead to almost endless forms. some of which had better replicative capacity and even some with a bent for cooperation.

The more particules /agents of selection there are, the more the capacity to evolve both in terms of adaptive and non-adaptive evolution.

Currently there is many hundreds of Picograms or more or less naked DNA in the oceans and soils of the world. Giant viruses like Mimivirus also might be recent parasites in that a lot of their machinery for independent life still exists in their genomes. So even at the end of the Hadean epoch, or even slightly before, we could have had oceans with surpisingly concentrated amounts of RNA replicators. If the hydrothermal vent hypothesis is correct, then protcells formed in these vents [eg See Koonin] could have had a ready supply of not only information [RNA genes], but also energy [RNA as a food source]. :thumbup:

Greyman · **#379** by **Greyman** » Dec 31, 2013 8:51 am

The study of Cellular Automata reveals that surprisingly complex systems can and do emerge from quite simple interactions.

Conversely, in Engineering, a design solution is considered elegant if it uses methods that are both highly effective and simple.

Thus complexity is obviously not a good metric for inferring design.

Calilasseia · **#380** by **Calilasseia** » Dec 31, 2013 8:55 am

Greyman wrote:The study of Cellular Automata reveals that surprisingly complex systems can and do emerge from quite simple interactions.

Conversely, in Engineering, a design solution is considered elegant if it uses methods that are both highly effective and simple.

Thus complexity is obviously not a good metric for inferring design.

Indeed, Conway's original Game of Life is an excellent example. Which can even be started off with a random assemblage of cells, and observed evolving over time, to see if ordered structures appear. Many ordered structures appearing within this computer environment have been documented, and have been documented emerging from random cell assemblages at the start of the simulation. Indeed, a diligent individual could code the whole thing in JavaScript and run it on a web page.

A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Re: A timeline of the first life

Who is online