Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[OldWiseGuy]

Think back, you know it has, how could you possibly believe what you believe if it hadn't been tampered with?

True, the spirit leads one into all truth.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You think science only has simple explanations for this? If you go to a butterfly expert and ask what happens, they'll just give you a few sentences and say, "That's literally all we know."

REALLY?

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...llars-transforming-butterflies-metamorphosis/
http://www.zmescience.com/ecology/animals-ecology/how-caterpillar-turn-butterfly-0534534/
https://askentomologists.com/2015/01/14/what-happens-inside-a-cocoon/

These sources just begin to scratch the surface of what we know, and they are all more detailed than what you posted.

Great information, thanks. But what are the chances (odds) of this phenomenon being self-directed (evolution) versus purposeful creation? Science has indeed witnessed the complexity, but then applies the same "and then a miracle happened" in the form of the ToE, as the 'intelligent' agent of the process.

The more complex a thing is the more likely there's an outside force at work.

 

[durangodawood]

Ponder this.

I once was engaged in similar discussions on another site. My opinions attracted a group of four or five fellows who basically attacked every position I took, which puzzled me. At length I came across all of these fellow's 'stories' in other threads unrelated to the subjects we were arguing about.

What I discovered was that all of them had serious personal problems including health, finances, employment, marital, and relationship problems with their kids and others. In short they were a mess, and upon learning this lost all credibility with me.

When I said that I'm exceptional 'by any measure' I meant the usual measures that we measure our successes and failures by. Needless to say the aforementioned failures that these fellows suffered most certainly influenced their arguments and attitudes.

I suspect that I might find some of the same conditions here.

All this said I take no pleasure in the misfortune of others, or excessive pride in my own good fortune. I believe I am blessed in many areas where others are not, and I am very thankful.

I see lots of people in this very thread who are generous with their knowledge and genuine in their presentation.

Honestly I resent the idea that you just tar them all as 'dishonest', despite your unfortunate experience in another forum.

In a place like this you should presume some level of mutual respect until shown otherwise. Its the basic starting point for discussion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Great information, thanks. But what are the chances (odds) of this phenomenon being self-directed (evolution) versus purposeful creation? Science has indeed witnessed the complexity, but then applies the same "and then a miracle happened" in the form of the ToE, as the 'intelligent' agent of the process.

The more complex a thing is the more likely there's an outside force at work.

But you have to have to be able to show that an outside force at work on a process if you want scientists to include it in their theories. Can you scientifically, measurably and demonstrably show that God has had a hand in a scientific process, which is not a Bible quote or an argument from incredulity?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True, but why? What makes some people dishonest and others not? How does evolution work in this regard?

Evolution requires variation if populations are to keep well adapted to their changing environments. This results in a range of shapes, sizes and behaviours. The majority will tend to conform to a norm or average, with outliers at either end of the scale (as in the 'normal distribution' and similar).

I first noticed how fundamental these variations are to the results of evolutionary processes when I downloaded and ran the Tierra evolutionary simulator on my computer in the 1990's. This used tiny strings of code, about 60 bytes long, that could replicate themselves, randomly changed bits of the code to simulate mutation, and allowed them to multiply and 'compete' in a virtual environment with a process that killed off those over a certain age, or when too many occupied a chunk of memory, etc. This was a very simple system compared with real world evolution, but after running it for 30,000 generations or so, you ended up with a whole ecosystem of variations on the original replicators, including a small percentage of symbiotes, parasites, and predators.

The same kind of variation seems to develop in social groups and societies - a bulk of normal folk, a few freeloaders and hangers-on, a few driven leaders and power-seekers, etc. So I think we should expect to see a bulk of reasonably honest people, with smaller numbers of 'angels' and 'demons'. There are lots of other factors biasing these predilections, but people who have access to or control money flows in organizations have greater temptations and see more financial inequality among their peer group, which seem to be factors in corruption.

That's my (over-simplified) take on it.

 

[MasonP]

True, the spirit leads one into all truth.

Exactly, it's sad but true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Honestly I resent the idea that you just tar them all (bold, italics mine) as 'dishonest', despite your unfortunate experience in another forum.

I said "some", not "all".

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But you have to have to be able to show that an outside force at work on a process if you want scientists to include it in their theories. Can you scientifically, measurably and demonstrably show that God has had a hand in a scientific process, which is not a Bible quote or an argument from incredulity?

Outside force or inside force; neither can be observed.

 

[durangodawood]

I said "some", not "all".

Oh brother...

OldWiseGuy said: ↑
....There can be no 'honest' discussion because people, even (gasp) scientists, are so dishonest.....

 

[Kylie]

Great information, thanks. But what are the chances (odds) of this phenomenon being self-directed (evolution) versus purposeful creation? Science has indeed witnessed the complexity, but then applies the same "and then a miracle happened" in the form of the ToE, as the 'intelligent' agent of the process.

The more complex a thing is the more likely there's an outside force at work.

Of course, this is assuming that it just popped into existence this way, instead of developing from other less complex things...

Irreducible complexity is a bad argument to use.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Oh brother...

OldWiseGuy said: ↑
....There can be no 'honest' discussion because people, even (gasp) scientists, are so dishonest.....

That wasn't the context that you replied to. Anyway I stand by the statement.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course, this is assuming that it just popped into existence this way, instead of developing from other less complex things...

Irreducible complexity is a bad argument to use.

Declaring that a mousetrap that is missing a part still can be used as a paperweight is hardly an argument against irreducible complexity.

 

[durangodawood]

That wasn't the context that you replied to.

Ive been talking about that, and only that, ever since you wrote it.

You seem to want to disavow it by simply forgetting you wrote it. Fair enough.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Ive been talking about that, and only that, ever since you wrote it.

You seem to want to disavow it by simply forgetting you wrote it. Fair enough.

Au contraire. I stand by it, ergo;

Humans are dishonest.
Scientists are human.
Therefore,
Scientists are dishonest.

 

[durangodawood]

Au contraire. I stand by it, ergo;

Humans are dishonest.
Scientists are human.
Therefore,
Scientists are dishonest.

Tell me about how you've been dishonest in this discussion.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Declaring that a mousetrap that is missing a part still can be used as a paperweight is hardly an argument against irreducible complexity.

Of course it is! That's how evolution works! A mousetrap without the lock and trip makes a perfectly functional (if not a little bulky) tie clip too.

The flagellum that's often touted as irreducibly complex can lose 12 or so of it's proteins (in the same way the Mousetrap lost two of its five parts) to be reappropriated as a virulence system as used by Yersinia, also known as the Black Plague.

a very persuasive argument imho.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Outside force or inside force; neither can be observed.

Except natural selection can be observed happening, both in the fossil record and in life, so we can factor nature in to scientific equations. But you're right, we cannot observe God acting on His creation, so he cannot be included in scientific equations.

 

[Kylie]

Declaring that a mousetrap that is missing a part still can be used as a paperweight is hardly an argument against irreducible complexity.

I wouldn't dream of it.

Instead, I'll show you this: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

Now, don't let me see you using irreducible complexity again, okay? Coz it's just dumb.

 

[MasonP]

Humans are dishonest.

We know that's true because humans wrote the bible.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I wouldn't dream of it.

Instead, I'll show you this: http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html

Now, don't let me see you using irreducible complexity again, okay? Coz it's just dumb.

Your article didn't prove it's point at all. The author simply constructed a different mousetrap. What he did was no different than removing the door from a structure, then tearing down the structure, rebuilding it smaller, and using some of the leftover lumber to make a new door. Any observer would see that while it's made of the same lumber it isn't the same building.