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

[Gottservant]

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

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

Validation means "complete".

Ergo evolution allows you to determine design, but only the right design completes the Evolution.

However, unlike the term complete, validation implies a conscious ratification, which is relevant to living organisms, since they are conscious.

 

[[serious]]

Validation means "complete".

Ergo evolution allows you to determine design, but only the right design completes the Evolution.

However, unlike the term complete, validation implies a conscious ratification, which is relevant to living organisms, since they are conscious.

Ah, not only a non typical use of the word, but also a repitition of one of your strawmen:

5. There is no such thing as "completely evolved." Evolution is a process, not an end point.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

I'm gonna give up and going to call "troll" or "poe".

 

[DogmaHunter]

Validation means "complete".

Ergo evolution allows you to determine design, but only the right design completes the Evolution.

However, unlike the term complete, validation implies a conscious ratification, which is relevant to living organisms, since they are conscious.

This not sense does make.

 

[ebia]

This not sense does make.

I've never come across a posting by the OP that did.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I've never come across a posting by the OP that did.

Looks like it.

I'm still fairly new here and am still brave and courageous.
I'm loosing faith fast though - pun intented lol

 

[variant]

7. Non living things don't evolve

Life has a specific accepted definition with in biology.

Living things have the following characteristics:
Homeostasis
Organization
Metabolism
Reproduction

These words have established meanings.

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.

Viruses definitely evolve.

Be more careful.

 

[[serious]]

Viruses definitely evolve.

Be more careful.

Hmm... you are right. I'll have to reword that one. How about "things that don't reproduce don't evolve," any potential issues there I'm missing?

 

[Radagast]

This not sense does make.

'It seems very pretty,' said Alice when she had finished it, 'but it's RATHER hard to understand!' (You see she didn't like to confess, ever to herself, that she couldn't make it out at all.) 'Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don't exactly know what they are!

 

[lesliedellow]

I can't even make head or tail of that supposed argument, let alone respond to it.

 

[UnderstandForgive]

What about complexity implies design?

There is no sense in arguing pseudoscientific claims, if scientists say they have strong reason to believe the earth is not as old as the biblical account. Then creationists retort that the earth was made 6000 years ago with the appearance of being billions of years older. The evidence is some conspiracy of god you see, a prank he's pulling to test our faith. Its as if they are saying; You rely on evidence! psshhh, you fell for the oldest trick in the book!

If you want to believe a creator created the process of evolution, there is no scientific reason to suppose that as far as I know. But go ahead believe whatever you want. What experiment can you do to prove that? Until you find an answer for that, your belief will be filed along side Zeus, Shiva, Thor, Ju Ju, santa claus, the easter bunny, voodoo and other mythologies.

 

[poolerboy0077]

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

It's both, actually. Mutagenesis can occur spontaneously or caused by external phenomenon like chemicals, ultraviolet radiation, viruses, etc.

The mutation in and of itself does not guarantee adaptation. There is no conscious awareness by any of these processes that what is mutated will be beneficial or not to the species given the present environment. Natural selection is passive, not proactive as in the case of artificial selection.

So if Evolution is an observation

Evolution, as with everything in nature, is a phenomenon that exists independent of observation. Observation is simply the means (i.e., the epistemology) by which we recognize such reality.