Evolution Cannot be Proven

reply to post by kegs


Alright. My definition of IC.

Irreducibly complex systems means a system that has many intradependant functioning parts. Remove one of these parts and the system stops working (death).

Creationists will point out that even the simple cell is IC so it can't have evolved these parts independently, meaning that they had to evolve dependently, or (more favourable to creationists) had to be 'created' as they are.

The problem is that IC systems can evolve independently, because things will chance their use many times as they evolve and subsequently can become intradependant.

So IC systems are only a statement on current states of organisms.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Ashley, what if I told you evolution was a blind watchmaker?

Computer simulations have used mutation and natural selection and produced more complex (yes, IC systems) life forms than those that were designed.

When I read that argument in Richard Dawkins' book, I could not overlook the irony.

Okay, who made the computer programs to simulate evolution?

The argument is very weak.

Unfortunately for you, a simulation doesn't produce designed organisms. The simulations use the laws of nature and mathematical representations of things like natural selection.

The only thing you might be able to say about the simulations themselves is maybe the universe is designed - thats a completely diferent argument.

Watch the video for petes sake.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Good Wolf]

Ahhh irreducible complexity! The flagellum and all that.

Completely debunked, but it's hardly surprising a creationist wouldn't know.

That involves that 'looking things up for yourself' thing again.

I'm too tired and frankly can't be bothered explaining it now.

Try looking it up creationists! You never know you might actually learn something!

Originally posted by Good Wolf
Unfortunately for you, a simulation doesn't produce designed organisms. The simulations use the laws of nature and mathematical representations of things like natural selection.

The only thing you might be able to say about the simulations themselves is maybe the universe is designed - thats a completely diferent argument.

Watch the video for petes sake.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Good Wolf]

I am not denying evolution.
The simulation only takes initial conditions and observed laws of nature which was put in there by the software designer.
The argument remains moot.

HOW?!

The simulations produce undesigned species through mutations and natural selections. It's as useful as any hypothetical statement used to explain how natural selection works. It's more useful infact.

Originally posted by kegs
Ahhh irreducible complexity! The flagellum and all that.

Completely debunked, but it's hardly surprising a creationist wouldn't know.

That involves that 'looking things up for yourself' thing again.

I'm too tired and frankly can't be bothered explaining it now.

Try looking it up creationists! You never know you might actually learn something!

*Underline Emphasis Mine.

Er... I was the one who said it was debunked [arguably, of course] in court by an evolutionist. I also made it pretty clear I knew what it was but was curious to see an evolutionist say they accept the concept of IC and I wanted to hear more about their thoughts on a friendly conversational level. You might need some sleep, Hon. I knew exactly what it was but you had to ask another member. Also, again, IC is a cornerstone of the ID movement- not creationism. I think you might need to take your own advice and 'look it up.'

[edit on 9/21/2008 by AshleyD]

reply to post by AshleyD

Hon

Can ya do me a favour and never call me this please. I disturbs me.

reply to post by Good Wolf


You guys are a whiny bunch! Since I wasn't even talking to you, it only scares me now to think what Kegs will have to say once he/she reads it.

Anyways, I will do my best to accommodate your request. lol. Being a mother and from the south, though, I can't make any promises. It's been known to happen people get offended at it, I apologize, then call them that again in two minutes. Force of habit. I'll try to make a mental note to add you to that list but please don't hold it against me if it happens.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by AshleyD]

Forgive me for not replying as quickly as possible. It has been so long since I have studied evolution and intelligent design. I am very rusty. I will try my best.

Many are familiar with Richard Dawkins and his famous "Biomorphs." These are computer generated creatures that supposedly are the result of the natural process of evolution as simulated by Dawkins. The point, of course, was to prove that God (or any intelligent designer *) does not exist.

Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins In his book; The Blind Watchmaker as he viewed his computer screen while the program he designed was running: "Nothing in my biologist’s intuition, nothing in my 20 years experience of programming computers, and nothing in my wildest dreams, prepared me for what actually emerged on the screen. I can’t remember exactly when in the sequence it first began to dawn on me that an evolved resemblance to something like an insect was possible. With a wild surmise, I began to breed generation after generation, from whichever child looked most like an insect. My incredulity grew in parallel with the evolving resemblance... Admittedly they have eight legs like a spider, instead of six like an insect, but even so! I still cannot conceal from you my feeling of exultation as I first watched these exquisite creatures emerging before my eyes."

* Added by me

A few flaws in his argument:

The first flaw in the experiment was made by Dawkins himself, when, because of his own foreknowledge, he inserted symmetry into the program. He knew that bugs, animals and airplanes were symmetric so in his mind it was necessary to insert this feature into the program.

If you hold a card to any of his biomorphs along the artificially created line of symmetry that he created you will find that his so called animals, rocket ships, etc. are nothing more than interesting patterns. In his later programs he, the creator, added more lines of symmetry and thereby was able to "create" various things that looked like snowflakes.

They would of course look nothing like trees even with the branching mechanism if he did not program in the symmetry function.

So then it was Dawkins himself who decided which creature or beginning life form was to be "naturally" selected. Where is this intelligent input in real life?

You can read the rest at www.puretolerance.com...

Sorry, I will refresh my memory and make a better argument next time

[edit on 21-9-2008 by Deaf Alien]

reply to post by Deaf Alien


That's some interesting stuff, DA. I've looked into some of these programs before and they have been discussed on ATS before but they seem like hogwash to me, for reasons that should be obvious. No expert, of course, but it's something I've been reading about lately. Looks like there are a lot of flaws in the logic and real world vs. simulation.

Do you believe in ID on a non religious level? Not going to debate you- just curious what your personal beliefs are considering our origins.

But your' argument only pertains to Dawkins' simulation.

It's not the only simulation run. Most that I've seen only had set mutation rates and population size to start with. The watchmaker one had the pressures of natural selection placed on it as how accurate the clocks were.

What happened? Complicated, four handed, very accurate clocks evolved. It's just a hypothetical given pre-set rules and pressures.

Originally posted by AshleyD
reply to post by Deaf Alien

 

Do you believe in ID on a non religious level? Not going to debate you- just curious what your personal beliefs are considering our origins.

Yes, I do believe in ID on a nonreligious level. I am not religious. I believe that we and the universes are eternal. Perhaps I am a buddhist without knowing it

reply to post by Deaf Alien


Ah, Ok. Thanks for sharing. It's always nice to hear where other people are coming from and what they believe. Before I accepted Christ I wasn't an evolutionist either, certainly not a creationist, and I had never heard of ID. We were all taught evolution in high school and college and even though I wasn't religious, I still remember being a scrawny little kid sitting at my desk thinking, 'This doesn't sound right to me.' So it's always nice to hear from other people who understand that feeling.

To the best of my understanding, there is only one thing that I can say I think could be ID and that's things like Universal constants, the fact that water freezes edge/top down. The state of the universe seems designed for life, but at the same time it's too empty to be sure that that's true. The universe seems to support life but not encourage life, just as it supports intelligence but not encourage intelligence.

reply to post by Good Wolf


I just finished watching that youtube video "Evolution IS a blind watchmaker"
I got to say that it is a very, very interesting video. I do understand the argument.
I will study the software code as I am a computer programmer myself. I am very interested Thanks for the video.
I will study more later.

Originally posted by Good Wolf
To the best of my understanding, there is only one thing that I can say I think could be ID and that's things like Universal constants, the fact that water freezes edge/top down. The state of the universe seems designed for life, but at the same time it's too empty to be sure that that's true. The universe seems to support life but not encourage life, just as it supports intelligence but not encourage intelligence.

I have pondered that myself sometimes. I do believe that the universe cannot help but produce life.
One possibility is, as you said, that there are universal constants and mathematical forms and geometry that have always existed (Platonic's Idealism). Forms, symmetries, geometries, etc. are preexistent. The universe may be like a mandelbrot set.
What makes equations work to describe nature? Stephen Hawkins once asked, "What breathes fire in the equations?"
Sorry, this is all way out there. One thing for sure, we only understand only fractional part of how the whole thing work.

Life elsewise is universally accepted in intellectual circles these days because of how vast the universe is. Mathematically, It's almost a certainty and practically, is a certainty.

I read a good book by Isaac Asimov, called "Extraterrestrial Civilisations". It went through all the math of life as understood in the early 90's (I think 90's, don't quote me), and at the end we had the figure of 250,000 earth like planets with human like beings with an intelligent civilisations in the Milky Way.

I used to think that 250,000 was a lot for the a universe and that it was absolutely bustling with life, but considering how much space there is in the milky way, it's not all that much, almost to the point of saying that life is not the purpose of the universe (if there is a purpose)

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Good Wolf]

Science has proven quite conclusively that life cannot exist. Arguments so far on this thread do not sufficiently support the initial existence of life. Suppose you do have a single chemical reaction take place. That is a far cry from an organism, however simple. Although not a biologist, it seems my education in university has shown that the simplest of all life, however early in the history of this good earth, is so complex as to be impossible. And then that life must reproduce.

If we follow that life cannot exist, but that it does, we are in a dilemma. Science leaves you at the station, bag in hand and nowhere to go. At least in the Bible you have an answer offered.

Even the Bible says "oppositions of science, falsely so called." The Bible is saying that science doesn't oppose the Bible. People falsely state that science opposes the Bible.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
Science has proven quite conclusively that life cannot exist.

You clearly have no grasp on science.

Arguments so far on this thread do not sufficiently support the initial existence of life.

Mainly because it has nothing to do with evolution, but anyway.

Suppose you do have a single chemical reaction take place. That is a far cry from an organism, however simple.

Where did you get your education?

Although not a biologist

Ah there we go.

it seems my education in university has shown that the simplest of all life, however early in the history of this good earth, is so complex as to be impossible. And then that life must reproduce.

You have much to learn, young padawan.




Here's an even better one.



Prehaps instead of having to get your education off of youtube, you should go to your university library.

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Good Wolf]

[edit on 9/21/2008 by Good Wolf]