Darwin couldn't have discovered Evolution, unless it was already irreducibly complex

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So look, there is a simple problem here: how did Evolution get discovered? The thing is according to Evolution, things don't get discovered unless they can survive and they can't survive unless they mutate and adapt and so prove that they are fit enough. This presumes a baseline integrity of having the integrity to contain the mutation and manipulate it, so as to adapt. So in order for Darwin to "discover" Evolution it had to have some sort of structure that would not just disappear, the second that part of it was wrong or had to change. That means Evolution had to be irreducibly complex, which is an argument for design, not Evolution.

I don't think you can just explain this away. There is a working integrity here, that Darwin is obviously using, in order to explore his theory. He obviously does not believe that at a moment's notice, his theory could change and hide from view. The same goes for the things he is studying: he does not expect that they will change so fast or so much that he will not be able to recognize them, he assumes that he will be able to return to them to study them further. This is again irreducible complexity. Furthermore, he expects his environment to remain stable, so that he is able to conduct his studies. Are you getting the picture here? All the time he is relying on an irreducible complexity that speaks of design, not Evolution.

I wonder how you will say I am contradicting you now.

 

[Old Ned]

That means Evolution had to be irreducibly complex, which is an argument for design, not Evolution.

Why?
Electricity is complex, Atoms are complex, water is complex, fire is complex... they were designed?
Death is complex.... cancer is complex, aids is complex... these were designed too?

Darwin figured out how life works, Evolution is "Change over time"

You say it's all design?... we can give you multitudes of examples that if everything were designed, then the designer either had a sick sense of humor or was really bad at it.

 

[CabVet]

Evolution: change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

This thread: not about evolution.

 

[[serious]]

Oh, Hi gott, I see you are posting about evolution. Before we continue, a few reminders about what evolution is and isn't. These should all look familiar, because you've been told them before. Many, many times.

1. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time.
2. We don't choose to, or not to, evolve
3. Populations evolve, individuals don't.
4. Evolution is a description of real world events, not a theory of morality. It does not proscribe any action on our part.
5. There is no such thing as "completely evolved." Evolution is a process, not an end point.
6. All modern day creatures have been evolving for the same amount of time and are thus equally evolved.
7. Non living things don't evolve
8. "Belief" is not a genetic trait. Belief does not evolve in the biological sense.
9. We do not expect all populations to solve all problems in the exact same way. (ex. The fact that birds evolved wings does not mean we expect all creatures to evolve wings)
10. Adding the "evolved" or "evolutionarily" doesn't make what ever you are saying relevant to evolution. (ex. "what's the best pizza topping, evolutionarily speaking" makes no sense because pizza toppings are unrelated to evolution.)

Now that we've got that out of the way, let me read your post. I have not read your post prior to this point, but at this point, we are all used to the same strawmen you always go back to. Things that are wrong will be marked in red:

Hi there,

So look, there is a simple problem here: how did Evolution get discovered? The thing is according to Evolution, things don't get discovered unless they can survive and they can't survive unless they mutate and adapt and so prove that they are fit enough. This presumes a baseline integrity of having the integrity to contain the mutation and manipulate it, so as to adapt. So in order for Darwin to "discover" Evolution it had to have some sort of structure that would not just disappear, the second that part of it was wrong or had to change. That means Evolution had to be irreducibly complex, which is an argument for design, not Evolution.

I don't think you can just explain this away. There is a working integrity here, that Darwin is obviously using, in order to explore his theory. He obviously does not believe that at a moment's notice, his theory could change and hide from view. The same goes for the things he is studying: he does not expect that they will change so fast or so much that he will not be able to recognize them, he assumes that he will be able to return to them to study them further. This is again irreducible complexity. Furthermore, he expects his environment to remain stable, so that he is able to conduct his studies. Are you getting the picture here? All the time he is relying on an irreducible complexity that speaks of design, not Evolution.

I wonder how you will say I am contradicting you now.

7. Non living things don't evolve

Also, where did you get that in order for something to be discovered, it has to "survive?" the positron has been discovered, but it doesn't survive at all. First off, it isn't alive, so that precludes biological survival. Second, they exist for a VERY short time, so even using a broader "continue to exist" measure they don't survive.

The words you are saying don't make any sense.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Complex ideas does not equate to needs a creator.

 

[Gottservant]

Why?
[...]
Death is complex....

You don't discover death, man! Get back to me when your list makes sense.

 

[Gottservant]

Oh, Hi gott, I see you are posting about evolution. Before we continue, a few reminders about what evolution is and isn't. These should all look familiar, because you've been told them before. Many, many times.

1. Evolution is the change in allele frequency in a population over time.
2. We don't choose to, or not to, evolve
3. Populations evolve, individuals don't.
4. Evolution is a description of real world events, not a theory of morality. It does not proscribe any action on our part.
5. There is no such thing as "completely evolved." Evolution is a process, not an end point.
6. All modern day creatures have been evolving for the same amount of time and are thus equally evolved.
7. Non living things don't evolve
8. "Belief" is not a genetic trait. Belief does not evolve in the biological sense.
9. We do not expect all populations to solve all problems in the exact same way. (ex. The fact that birds evolved wings does not mean we expect all creatures to evolve wings)
10. Adding the "evolved" or "evolutionarily" doesn't make what ever you are saying relevant to evolution. (ex. "what's the best pizza topping, evolutionarily speaking" makes no sense because pizza toppings are unrelated to evolution.)

Now that we've got that out of the way, let me read your post. I have not read your post prior to this point, but at this point, we are all used to the same strawmen you always go back to. Things that are wrong will be marked in red:

7. Non living things don't evolve

Also, where did you get that in order for something to be discovered, it has to "survive?" the positron has been discovered, but it doesn't survive at all. First off, it isn't alive, so that precludes biological survival. Second, they exist for a VERY short time, so even using a broader "continue to exist" measure they don't survive.

The words you are saying don't make any sense.

I think you mean non-replicating things.

Otherwise you are presuming (once again) that things are living to begin with.

 

[Gottservant]

Complex ideas does not equate to needs a creator.

Although I do believe design speaks of a Creator, I was not actually making that point.

It would be sufficient for me, as a critic of Evolution, if you simply accepted that design validates evolution, not the other way around.

However, that would require you accepting a morally sound foundation of individual integrity, which to date, you have been unwilling to reconcile yourself to.

 

[[serious]]

I think you mean non-replicating things.

Otherwise you are presuming (once again) that things are living to begin with.

Life has a specific accepted definition with in biology.

Living things have the following characteristics:
Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Reproduction

These words have established meanings.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It would be sufficient for me, as a critic of Evolution, if you simply accepted that design validates evolution, not the other way around.

What do you specifically mean by this?
Give a real world example if that makes it easier.

 

[[serious]]

Although I do believe design speaks of a Creator, I was not actually making that point.

It would be sufficient for me, as a critic of Evolution, if you simply accepted that design validates evolution, not the other way around.

However, that would require you accepting a morally sound foundation of individual integrity, which to date, you have been unwilling to reconcile yourself to.

Design may indicate a designer, but what indicates design? What characteristics separate designed things from naturally forming things? For example, how would we know a watch is designed, but a snowflake isn't? How do we know a diamond ring is designed, but a geode isn't?

 

[Paulos23]

Hi there,

So look, there is a simple problem here: how did Evolution get discovered? The thing is according to Evolution, things don't get discovered unless they can survive and they can't survive unless they mutate and adapt and so prove that they are fit enough. This presumes a baseline integrity of having the integrity to contain the mutation and manipulate it, so as to adapt. So in order for Darwin to "discover" Evolution it had to have some sort of structure that would not just disappear, the second that part of it was wrong or had to change. That means Evolution had to be irreducibly complex, which is an argument for design, not Evolution.

I don't think you can just explain this away. There is a working integrity here, that Darwin is obviously using, in order to explore his theory. He obviously does not believe that at a moment's notice, his theory could change and hide from view. The same goes for the things he is studying: he does not expect that they will change so fast or so much that he will not be able to recognize them, he assumes that he will be able to return to them to study them further. This is again irreducible complexity. Furthermore, he expects his environment to remain stable, so that he is able to conduct his studies. Are you getting the picture here? All the time he is relying on an irreducible complexity that speaks of design, not Evolution.

I wonder how you will say I am contradicting you now.

Four things stand out to me.

1. Things do not evolve, biological orginisoms do.

2. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it started complex or was made.

3. Your reading to much into Darwin's intentions.

4. Your adding your own values to evolution that are not part of the theory.

You continue to treat the theory of evolution as a religion and the sole reason for athiesium when it is niether of those things. It is the discription of a natural process that has been observed.

You always think there is more there, but there isn't.

 

[Gottservant]

What do you specifically mean by this?
Give a real world example if that makes it easier.

Simple, you don't validate evolution with more evolution.

A mutation doesn't become a valid adaptation, without ceasing to be a mutation.

The distinction is as clear as gold.

 

[Gottservant]

Life has a specific accepted definition with in biology.

Living things have the following characteristics:
Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Reproduction

These words have established meanings.

You could imply all these things with self-replication.

What's your point?

That the theory isn't as simple as a concept?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Simple, you don't validate evolution with more evolution.

A mutation doesn't become a valid adaptation, without ceasing to be a mutation.

The distinction is as clear as gold.

The distinction is rather non-nonsensical. I asked you to explain and all you did, basically, was restate the claim you were asked to explain.
I'm still at a loss as to what you mean.

Let's take your not-so-specific-example, put it in the actual context of the actual theory and then you can try to clarify your point.

- organisms produce off spring, let's say 5 individuals.
- all 5 have let's say 10 mutations each.
- 2 die shortly after birth.
- 3 survive till breeding age
- 1 manages to breed and passes its DNA (which includes the 10 mutations) to its off spring.


Please point specifically to the step at which point "evolution is validated by evolution" and explain what you mean by it and why you think it is a problem.

 

[Gottservant]

The distinction is rather non-nonsensical. I asked you to explain and all you did, basically, was restate the claim you were asked to explain.
I'm still at a loss as to what you mean.

Let's take your not-so-specific-example, put it in the actual context of the actual theory and then you can try to clarify your point.

- organisms produce off spring, let's say 5 individuals.
- all 5 have let's say 10 mutations each.
- 2 die shortly after birth.
- 3 survive till breeding age
- 1 manages to breed and passes its DNA (which includes the 10 mutations) to its off spring.


Please point specifically to the step at which point "evolution is validated by evolution" and explain what you mean by it and why you think it is a problem.

You are saying Evolution validates itself at the last step, as if passing on offspring proves Evolution has taken place, when actually that is the exact same thing they were doing in the first place... it's a logical error.

Recursion, in and of itself is not a pure concept.

Only pure concepts are worthy of becoming fully fledged theories.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are saying Evolution validates itself at the last step

No. There is no validation. Organisms reproduce with mutation. Some survive, some die. Some reproduce, some don't. Those that do pass on there DNA. There's no validation here. This is pure observation. It's what happens. Every day. With every new born.

, as if passing on offspring proves Evolution has taken place

Natural selection, yes.
The genes of the 4 that didn't manage to reproduce are lost and no longer part of the gene pool.

The genes of that 1 that managed to reproduce are passed on to off spring. Including the 10 mutations it was born with. And his off spring will add their own mutations. Again, it's what happens. Every day. In every new born.

This is fact.

This fact is what leads to speciation in the long run. Each generation adds its own mutations and passes them on to off spring. If we assume a hypothetical of 10 mutations per generation, this is conceptually what happens:

-generation0: base DNA
-generation1: base DNA + 10 mutations
-generation2: base DNA + 10 mutations + 10 mutations of gen1
-generation3: base DNA + 10 mutations + 10 mutations of gen1 + 10 mutations of gen2

Or, better put:

- generation0: baseDNA
- generation1: baseDNA + 10 mutations (= baseDNA1)
- generation2: baseDNA1 + 10 mutations (= baseDNA2)
- generation3: baseDNA2 + 10 mutations (= baseDNA3)
-...

The difference between generation 1 and 0 is 10 mutations.
The difference between generation 2 and 1 is 10 mutations.
The difference between generation 3 and 1 is 10 mutations.

However... the difference between generation 3 and 0 is... 30 mutations.

It's called "accumulation of changes".

, when actually that is the exact same thing they were doing in the first place... it's a logical error.

This does not compute. What are you objecting to?

Only pure concepts are worthy of becoming fully fledged theories.

A theory is a body of knowledge that accounts for all the facts and makes testable predictions about the world.

Evolution meets that standard.

 

[Gottservant]

No, you are not comparing apples with apples.

You are saying "Evolution started here: X, then something changed, then Evolution returned to: X" when actually, if you return to X then nothing has happened.

Organisms don't interact with their environment by trial and error, they interact with themselves by trial and error.

So if Evolution is an observation, it is a psychological one: subjective.

 

[[serious]]

You could imply all these things with self-replication.

No, you couldn't.

Viruses reproduce, but they do not metabolize anything nor do they maintain homeostasis.

Prions reproduce but do not fit ANY other requirements.

 

[[serious]]

You are saying Evolution validates itself at the last step, as if passing on offspring proves Evolution has taken place, when actually that is the exact same thing they were doing in the first place... it's a logical error.

Recursion, in and of itself is not a pure concept.

Only pure concepts are worthy of becoming fully fledged theories.

Wait, what exactly do you mean by "validation."

I'm thinking you might not be using the word as it's commonly understood.