Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

Your explanations are bunk.

I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Which is always bunk based on the fact that disagreeing with you means we are dishonest in some way.

No. Talking junk about the validity of controlled conditions is not merely "disagreeing with me". That's just intellectually dishonest anti-science rethoric.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I find it hilarious how this thread evolved into something that apparantly says that my arguments are only valid if, and only if, I am actually a programmer.

This is hilarious.

It's like the "reversed argument from authority".

Just when I thought discussions here couldn't get any crazier.... something like this happens.

Amazing.

I really don't care if you are a programmer, not a programmer if you are skilled or unskilled...it makes no difference to me. Your arguments are faulty and that is all that matters.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We have been over this before once.....

It's called intellectual honesty

Its called no evidence.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why?

For starters, because you have no real argument. At best, you have english sentences with ill-defined words like "design" and which are loaded with a priori faith based beliefs.

Secondly, because the quotes say the opposite of what you claim.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Its called no evidence.

No, it's intellectual honesty.

To not use words like "maybe" and "think" and "could have" etc, would imply a degree of certainty that does not belong in scientific discourse.

"There is" becomes "there might be".
"It is" becomes "it might be".
"It surely is" becomes "it seems likely".

Again: intellectual honesty.

Not "mere guesses based on nothing".

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, thank goodness that reality isn't limited by YOUR imagination.

This is what people call "the argument of incredulity".
The word "unfathomable" says all we need to know.

Imagination is not evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Good grief - did you even read my post?

I didn't say 'This is exactly how it happened, end of story'

I said 'This is what we know so far pending further research'

How do you think scientists formulated those ideas and gathered the current evidence - using the scientific method! By examining the evidence they have so far they realise that it isn't conclusive and more work needs to be done. What the article describes (which I assume you again haven't bothered to read) is current ideas and hypotheses based on research up to this point.

Maybe you didn't realise, but that's how science works. If you don't know the answer to a problem, like the evolution of the first cells, you say 'Well, we've got some evidence and we think this is what might have happened, but we're not entirely sure yet - we're going to work on it' I don't see why you have such a problem with this.

Evidence is not current ideas or hypotheses, evidence is what these ideas and hypotheses try to explain. Evidence is when something is confirmed by evidence about the evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

You're trying to get oncedeceived to actually meet her burden of proof?
You're trying to get her to define what she means with the word "design"?
You're trying to get her to present an objective method for detecting this "design" and a way to falsify it?


myea..... Good luck with that!

We've been trying for months to get her to answer those questions.

All we got was more shifting of the burden of proof and a ridiculous circular argument saying "design is evidence of design".

I'm not expecting different results this time around.

There comes a time.........................

 

[Jimmy D]

Imagination is not evidence

If you had applied that line of reasoning to your 'looks designed therefore it is designed' arguments this thread would have been a lot shorter.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're asking me to define your position? You're the one proposing the idea - you should be able to define it.

IF you are denying it then you should to.

Sometimes it feels as if it is.

Feelings are pretty much like opinions.

Um, that's your job. You are the one proposing the idea - it's your job to present the evidence and determine what that evidence is.

I have. I have shown that living organisms have structures, features, systems and functions that show design with purpose. I have provided non-theist quotes that they observe this evidence as well. Those non-theists have not provided any evolutionary evidence to explain why this design is apparent in all living things. Now if you do not agree with the consensus that there is an appearance of design in all living things (which no biologist that I am aware of denies) you being the odd man out here should probably define design and what you feel evidence of design would be if such a thing existed. If you have no idea about what evidence would show design, you can't really claim that the design that is seen by others isn't it.

I didn't make any assumption - I just showed that your argument didn't really make sense. You could argue you use the scientifically unfounded idea of God.

This is interesting. It doesn't make sense that if there is an appearance of design which implies a designer and concluding a designer then is nonsensical? It makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is claiming that you don't observe design when design is quite apparent and that design if there doesn't imply a designer.

Here we go again shifting the burden of proof. We've been talking about your claims for design and how they could be presented scientifically. So far, you haven't shown that they can be. If you want to believe for religious reasons that God designed all life - go right ahead, I don't care, you can believe whatever you want. When you start trying to introduce those ideas as science, that's where the difficulties arise. You still haven't presented any evidence for design nor any mechanism behind that design. I still fail to see how your design claims can be presented scientifically.

Here we are, you trying to claim that the design that is apparent in living organisms is not scientifically presented. It is. If you want to believe for naturalistic reason that there is no reason to believe in God that is your choice and you can believe whatever you want but scientifically it is shown that design is evident in living systems, structures, features and functions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're trying to get oncedeceived to actually meet her burden of proof?
You're trying to get her to define what she means with the word "design"?
You're trying to get her to present an objective method for detecting this "design" and a way to falsify it?


myea..... Good luck with that!

We've been trying for months to get her to answer those questions.

All we got was more shifting of the burden of proof and a ridiculous circular argument saying "design is evidence of design".

I'm not expecting different results this time around.

Its not my burden and you all need to understand that you have a burden for your positions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you had applied that line of reasoning to your 'looks designed therefore it is designed' arguments this thread would have been a lot shorter.

Do you think biologists are imagining design in living organisms?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I smell an argument from ignorance in the making.

Is this going to lead to "therefor, designed" later down the line?

You know... that term you still haven't properly defined and consistently refuse to do so?

Do you know the difference between assertion? Saying that we have a pretty good idea of how something evolved is hand waving and evolution of the gaps mentality. You all claim that you only will believe something if there is evidence to confirm it but you have nothing and still believe stories.

 

[whois]

This is a very minimal run down of the ATP Synthase and doesn't address many of the problems presented in those "good ideas" of how this evolved.

what really gets me is how complex this molecule is.
but yet people get upset when you say that DNA provides the information to build it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sorry, but that is exactly what he is saying. That, or he is calling Dawkins a liar.

Here are his exact words:

he presents evolution as some kind of "simple minded" process that creates the illusion of design.
nothing can be further from the truth

So either he is calling Professor Dawkins a professional liar, or he accuses him of not understanding evolution.

I can't speak for him but it is apparent to me that he is not questioning his professional aptitude but he is letting his biases control his conclusions.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And you completely ignore what follows next: the explanation of the statement.

Like the entire book you quote mined from Dawkins called "the blind watchmaker".

Explaining why the appearance is there is literally the topic of the book.

To then state that it is simply "asserted" that there is just "an appearance" is flat out dishonest.

That is simply a lie. I have not quote mined. The book as I have stated is filled with may haves, could be's, perhaps we can believe, if you let your imagination lead you's, it might have happened this ways and on and on and on but not one bit of actual scientific evidence. If you would like to present any scientific evidence that I might have missed in the book feel free to present it. No one has done it because it is not there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

what really gets me is how complex this molecule is.
but yet people get upset when you say that DNA provides the information to build it.

I totally agree. Here you are a person who doesn't believe in God, hasn't any motivation in defending that position and you still see how this all is a house of cards. Evolution happens but the evolution of the gaps arguments that everyone uses to explain anything and everything is nothing but assertions and stories.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I wouldn't expect you to say otherwise.

And I wouldn't expect you to think otherwise.

 

[whois]

Ok. Now put that beside the evidence that all living organisms have features, structures, systems and functions that appear to be deliberately designed for a purpose and what we have for evidence for that premise.

How science is using the deliberate design in molecular machines in new design ideas.
Adding:http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~rau/phys600/whitesides.htm

We can begin to answer these intriguing questions by asking a more ordinary one: What is a machine? Of the many definitions, I choose to take a machine to be "a device for performing a task." Going further, a machine has a design; it is constructed following some process; it uses power; it operates according to information built into it when it is fabricated. Although machines are commonly considered to be the products of human design and intention, why shouldn't a complex molecular system that performs a function also be considered a machine, even if it is the product of evolution rather than of design? Note this statement is an assumption and has no evidence.

The charm of the assembler is illusory: it is more appealing as metaphor than as reality, and less the solution of a problem than the hope for a miracle.
Issues of teleology aside, and accepting this broad definition, nanoscale machines already do exist, in the form of the functional molecular components of living cells--such as molecules of protein or RNA, aggregates of molecules, and organelles ("little organs")--in enormous variety and sophistication. The broad question of whether nanoscale machines exist is thus one that was answered in the affirmative by biologists many years ago. The question now is: What are the most interesting designs to use for future nanomachines? And what, if any, risks would they pose?

Cells include some molecular machines that seem similar to familiar human-scale machines: a rotary motor fixed in the membrane of a bacterium turns a shaft and superficially resembles an electric motor. Others more loosely resemble the familiar: an assembly of RNA and protein--the ribosome--makes proteins by an assembly line�like process. And some molecular machines have no obvious analogy in macroscopic machines: a protein--topoisomerase--unwinds double-stranded DNA when it becomes too tightly wound. The way in which these organelles are fabricated in the cell--an efficient synthesis of long molecules, combined with molecular self-assembly--is a model for economy and organization, and entirely unlike the brute-force method suggested for the assembler.

So the issue is not whether nanoscale machines can exist--they already do--or whether they can be important--we often consider ourselves as demonstrations that they are--but rather where we should look for new ideas for design. Should we be thinking about the General Motors assembly line or the interior of a cell of E. coli? Let's begin by comparing biological nanomachines--especially the ultimate self-replicating biological system, the cell--with nanoscale machines modeled on the large machines that now surround us. How does the biological strategy work, and how would it compare with a strategy based on making nanoscale versions of existing machines, or a new strategy of the type suggested by the assembler? Emphasis mine.

THIS ! !
this right here should be the focus of molecular biology.
this technology, if implemented correctly can solve EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM resource wise the human race faces.
it could definitely end any question about "runninig out of energy" (the energy crisis).
it could end pollution.
it could end the question of enough food, as a matter of fact it could reduce our agricultural footprint to almost zero.