"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Sycopat · 05-02-2013 06:59PM

mickrock wrote: »

I suppose it's inevitable that it happend by chance only if you don't think about it too deeply.

Nah, it's just how probability works.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 08:12PM

kiffer wrote: »

So...
What are those limits... roughly... I mean I don't expect much here just back up your comments a little.

You tell me. You seem to believe they're unlimited, based on no evidence.

The only "evolution" that has ever been obseved are the likes of the sizes of finches beaks and similar adaptations. These sorts of adaptations are then used as evidence for large scale evolution.

Based on this I'd nearly go so far as to label Darwinism pseudoscience.

Ziphius · 05-02-2013 08:21PM

mickrock wrote: »

You tell me. You seem to believe they're unlimited, based on no evidence.

The only "evolution" that has ever been obseved are the likes of the sizes of finches beaks and similar adaptations. These sorts of adaptations are then used as evidence for large scale evolution.

Based on this I'd nearly go so far as to label Darwinism pseudoscience.

I thought you said earlier that you did believe evolution occurs. Just you think it happens by some non Darwinian process you have yet to describe.

To be honest I cannot see your problem. You have already stated that.

Organisms have been evolving for millions of years.
Darwinian evolution does explain some of this evolution.

I don't understand why you believe Darwinism can explain certain evolutionary patterns but not others. Particularly as you haven't provided any alternative explanation whatsoever.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 08:38PM

Ziphius wrote: »

I thought you said earlier that you did believe evolution occurs. Just you think it happens by some non Darwinian process you have yet to describe.

To be honest I cannot see your problem. You have already stated that.
Organisms have been evolving for millions of years.

Darwinian evolution does explain some of this evolution.

I don't understand why you believe Darwinism can explain certain evolutionary patterns but not others. Particularly as you haven't provided any alternative explanation whatsoever.

No, I didn't say Darwinism explains some of this evolution. I wouldn't regard adaptations as evolution.

Nobody argues that adaptations occur but it's wishful thinking that lots of such adaptations will lead to increased complexity.

Ziphius · 05-02-2013 08:46PM

mickrock wrote: »

The point I was making with selective breeding is that when an animal is bred for a certain trait a limit will be reached in a relatively short time. An animal bred for its size will not continually get bigger and bigger. There is a limit to how much it will grow.

Similarly in the wild there are limits to how far an organism can change by Darwinian means.

What did you mean by this then?

dlofnep · 05-02-2013 08:56PM

mickrock wrote: »

No, I didn't say Darwinism explains some of this evolution. I wouldn't regard adaptations as evolution.

Nobody argues that adaptations occur but it's wishful thinking that lots of such adaptations will lead to increased complexity.

You've already stated that you do not know what the term species means, and as such - are are not in a position to comment on what evolution is.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 09:08PM

Zombrex wrote: »

It didn't happen by chance, it happened based on fundamental laws of chemistry. Given these laws, and the size of the universe, life in some form is pretty much inevitable.

It's not pretty much inevitable that life happened because of the laws of chemistry and the size of the universe.

You only say that because there is life. The existence of life doesn't prove that natural laws and chance were responsible, as you seem to think.

dlofnep · 05-02-2013 09:14PM

mickrock wrote: »

It's not pretty much inevitable that life happened because of the laws of chemistry and the size of the universe.

You only say that because there is life. The existence of life doesn't prove that natural laws and chance were responsible, as you seem to think.

It's not chance, it's probability.

If you did the lotto tomorrow, there would be a small chance that you would win it. But there is a high probability that someone would win it.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 09:19PM

Ziphius wrote: »

What did you mean by this then?

I meant an organism can adapt to a certain degree by Darwinian mechanisms but no increases in complexity have ever been observed.

It's a big leap of faith from Darwinism explaining minor adaptations to it explaining large scale evolution.

Ziphius · 05-02-2013 09:22PM

mickrock wrote: »

I meant an organism can adapt to a certain degree by Darwinian mechanisms but no increases in complexity have ever been observed.

It's a big leap of faith from Darwinism explaining minor adaptations to it explaining large scale evolution.

Congratulations! You have taken the first step on the road to being a real Darwinist.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 09:25PM

Ziphius wrote: »

Congratulations! You have taken the first step on the road to being a real Darwinist.

What's a real Darwinist?

The Mad Hatter · 05-02-2013 10:33PM

mickrock wrote: »

What's a real Darwinist?

One who doesn't apply arbitrary limits for no reason.

endacl · 05-02-2013 10:34PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

One who doesn't apply arbitrary limits for no reason.

I suspect there is a reason. Perhaps not an entirely rational one, but a reason nonetheless.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 11:02PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

One who doesn't apply arbitrary limits for no reason.

They are not arbitary limits. They are the limits seen in real life situations.

Making unjustified extrapolations isn't very scientific. Can anyone explain how Darwinism even qualifies as a proper theory? I regard it as no more than a hunch.

The Mad Hatter · 05-02-2013 11:05PM

mickrock wrote: »

They are not arbitary limits. They are the limits seen in real life situations.

What are they, specifically?

Zombrex · 05-02-2013 11:19PM

mickrock wrote: »

It's not pretty much inevitable that life happened because of the laws of chemistry and the size of the universe.

Yes it is. Self replicating molecules form under a variety of circumstances that would be common throughout the universe, using atoms and molecules that would also be common.

mickrock wrote: »

You only say that because there is life.

No, I say that based on what we know about the laws of chemistry, the formation of self replicating molecules, what we know about the quantify of necessary atoms in the universe and what we know about the size of the universe.

I appreciate you probably don't know anything about any of these things, but since when has your ignorance meant anything.

mickrock · 05-02-2013 11:19PM

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What are they, specifically?

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

The emergence of anything novel has never actually been observed.

Zombrex · 05-02-2013 11:22PM

mickrock wrote: »

No, I didn't say Darwinism explains some of this evolution. I wouldn't regard adaptations as evolution.

Nobody argues that adaptations occur but it's wishful thinking that lots of such adaptations will lead to increased complexity.

How do you account for genetic mutations that increase the size (and thus complexity) of the DNA sequence if, as you say, mutation cannot increase complexity?

dlofnep · 05-02-2013 11:26PM

mickrock wrote: »

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

What limits the mutations?

Zombrex · 05-02-2013 11:28PM

dlofnep wrote: »

What limits the mutations?

God apparently. Thou shall not mutate any further!

kiffer · 05-02-2013 11:38PM

mickrock wrote: »

You tell me. You seem to believe they're unlimited, based on no evidence.

The only "evolution" that has ever been obseved are the likes of the sizes of finches beaks and similar adaptations. These sorts of adaptations are then used as evidence for large scale evolution.

Based on this I'd nearly go so far as to label Darwinism pseudoscience.

I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb here... I never said I believed there are no limits. You keep asserting that there are limits but seem to be unable or unwilling to quantify what these limits are.

Minor changes add up.
Like compound intrest.
You seem to think that changes to body shape, bill shape, metabolism, bone structure... and all other aspects of a group of animals cant add up to massive morphological changes.
That a dog sized species that lives in a coastal region can't become* whale sized and aquatic over the course of say 10 million years?
...and all because we can only breed dogs that range in size from a match box to a pony in a few hundred?

*Edit: I don't like the word 'become' here... instead let's say 'give rise to' and also keep in mind that there may be more than one descendent species.

robindch · 05-02-2013 11:38PM

dlofnep wrote: »

What limits the mutations?

The imagination of creationists.

Sycopat · 06-02-2013 12:14AM

mickrock wrote: »

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

And I (and others) challenged you to back up this assertion and you couldn't.

I'm glad you're back to dance with us again, but I do wish you'd learn some new steps.

mickrock · 06-02-2013 12:44AM

kiffer wrote: »

That a dog sized species that lives in a coastal region can't become* whale sized and aquatic over the course of say 10 million years?

It's possible this could happen but not by Darwinian mechanisms i.e. blind and undirected.

With the little that Darwinism has been know to do, why do you think it would be capable of producing such a massive engineering feat? Is it just faith?

kiffer · 06-02-2013 12:46AM

mickrock wrote: »

I've already said that they're the adaptations that have actually been observed and what has actually been observed is limited.

The emergence of anything novel has never actually been observed.

Novel like lizards developing placenta rather than egg laying?

Novel sort of implies a big change no?
Do you think we'd need some sort of crocoduck creature for it to be novel?
I mean you clearly think that bacteria that can digest nylon don't count as novel... or maybe it's that you think it doesn't count because they are not animals?
What sort of thing would you consider novel...
Wait, you're just going to say "Why don't you show me novel things if they exist?" aren't you?

How about you give us a base line as to what you would consider novel so that we can understand your position?

Seriously, imagine talking to someone about social welfare or tax without them telling you what they think is a living wage, a high wage, a low vs high rate of tax but instead they just keep saying "The tax rate is wrong"... a terrible analogue I admit but it's late and I'm kind of sick of this run around.

kiffer · 06-02-2013 12:51AM

mickrock wrote: »

It's possible this could happen but not by Darwinian mechanisms i.e. blind and undirected.

With the little that Darwinism has been know to do, why do you think it would be capable of producing such a massive engineering feat? Is it just faith?

Ok... right... so... what?
Right... let me get this straight you agree that sucha change with in the (as yet totally undefined) limits of evolution but that it can't be caused by mutations producing variety, and selection by pressure caused by the environment?

mickrock · 06-02-2013 01:03AM

kiffer wrote: »

Ok... right... so... what?
Right... let me get this straight you agree that sucha change with in the (as yet totally undefined) limits of evolution but that it can't be caused by mutations producing variety, and selection by pressure caused by the environment?

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

BTW You said there are limits to what Darwinism can do. What do you consider them to be?

endacl · 06-02-2013 01:10AM

mickrock wrote: »

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

And that's OK. There's lots of things I don't get either.

When something has been explained to me as many times as those mechanisms have been explained to you though, and I still don't understand, I tend to accept them as 'thing's I don't understand. Not attack them as 'things that don't happen'.

Chemistry for example. Attempted it at LC level. Admitted defeat after two weeks. Still don't get it. I don't deny the reality of chemical processes though. I just can't explain, describe, or predict them. They do happen though. All the time. If I refused to accept that fact, well.... I'd come across as a bit of a plank, wouldn't I...?

dlofnep · 06-02-2013 01:18AM

mickrock wrote: »

I don't see how Darwinian mechanisms can get the job done.

That's understandable, since you don't know what the term species means. Everything about evolution depends on understanding what it is biologically that defines a species.

mickrock wrote: »

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

Yes there is, mountains of it. Much of which has already been highlighted to you.

robindch · 06-02-2013 01:22AM

mickrock wrote: »

Apart from it being illogical there's no evidence to back it up.

Are you blind or stupid? You've been presented with plenty and at this point, you are soap-boxing which violates the forum charter.

If your next post doesn't engage in honest debate, you will be carded. A subsequent failure will see you banned from A+A.

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Comments