Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

[Freodin]

?

It is quite simple.

You deny evolution. Because it is all too complex. Too unlikely. It is "practically impossible".
So, can we find other parts of the "picture" that are too complex, too unlikely... practically impossible?

There would a a number of wonderful examples that I could think of... but the one I meant in my last post is: human thought.

A bunch of molecules and atoms and a little electric and chemical energy, reacting via natural laws on certain stimuli, which are also nothing but molecules and atoms and energy?
Nonsense! Too complex, too unlikely... practically impossible. It must be created by the Great Artist: God!

So every thought that you have, that you type into your keyboard to have it posted here.... every thought that I have to respond to you... all this is just God talking to himself.

 

[Freodin]

Biology is a valid study of life. I don't consider evolution when I study biology. When I study a bird I don't consider the fictitious critter that it once was. A cardinal is and always was.......a cardinal.

No one denies this. And if you think that this is what evolution is about... your ignorance is showing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's your trillions of pictures, acting in mysterious concert to produce my big picture that I reject.

There is nothing "mysterious" about mutate, survive, breed, repeat.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Once again, I don't think you can get here from there, i.e., a single-cell organism surviving millions of years of cataclysm and becoming a huge complex organism like a brontosaurus, whale, or elephant, through some mysterious self-contained force. Never mind that same single-cell organism becoming millions of different creatures as well. It's just too fantastic.

1. arguments from incredulity are fallacious
2. again, there is nothing "mysterious" about mutate, survive, breed, repeat.

 

[Speedwell]

Once again, I don't think you can get here from there, i.e., a single-cell organism surviving millions of years of cataclysm and becoming a huge complex organism like a brontosaurus, whale, or elephant, through some mysterious self-contained force. Never mind that same single-cell organism becoming millions of different creatures as well. It's just too fantastic.

So you don't think God is smart enough and powerful enough to do it that way?

 

[Loudmouth]

"This fits easily with the idea of common descent, but is not what would be expected from special creation (although it isn't completely at odds with creation either, as the creator(s) could create life in any configuration imaginable)."
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Nested_Hierarchy

Still waiting for an answer.

How does the TWIN NESTED HIERARCHY lead to these conclusions?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry. It didn't post.

Every part is important and necessary if a car is to be produced. Without mining metal there is no use in designing a car. Same goes for organisms. The different tissues needed don't just appear out of thin air as evolution teaches. There must be a very complex process involved. So complex that it would be deemed impossible if examined honestly. In other words, "You can't get there from here."

Where does evolution teach that tissues appear out of nowhere?

Where has the study of tissues been shown to be impossible?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So you don't think God is smart enough and powerful enough to do it that way?

What is the oldest physical evidence of "mutate, survive, breed, repeat"?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

It is quite simple.

You deny evolution. Because it is all too complex. Too unlikely. It is "practically impossible".
So, can we find other parts of the "picture" that are too complex, too unlikely... practically impossible?

There would a a number of wonderful examples that I could think of... but the one I meant in my last post is: human thought.

A bunch of molecules and atoms and a little electric and chemical energy, reacting via natural laws on certain stimuli, which are also nothing but molecules and atoms and energy?
Nonsense! Too complex, too unlikely... practically impossible. It must be created by the Great Artist: God!

So every thought that you have, that you type into your keyboard to have it posted here.... every thought that I have to respond to you... all this is just God talking to himself.

God created the ability to think. Our thoughts are our own. If thoughts are just a product of evolution then we should be able to cause (or prevent) certain thoughts to occur by adding (or removing) "certain stimuli" to (or from) the brain.

How does science account for the fact that I can deliberately think of something I've never thought of before without building up to it over millions of years (and without my head exploding). Note: I haven't yet thought about something that I have never thought of before, but I'm thinking about doing it. Explain that.

While you're at it explain why I and millions of others don't believe in the ToE even though it's been around for 150 years. If we have indeed 'evolved' shouldn't we readily accept the idea?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

No.

 

[Loudmouth]

God created the ability to think. Our thoughts are our own. If thoughts are just a product of evolution then we should be able to cause (or prevent) certain thoughts to occur by adding (or removing) "certain stimuli" to (or from) the brain.

You have never heard of LSD?

How does science account for the fact that I can deliberately think of something I've never thought of before without building up to it over millions of years (and without my head exploding). Note: I haven't yet thought about something that I have never thought of before, but I'm thinking about doing it. Explain that.

It's called neuroscience. There's a whole field of science that explains all of it.

While you're at it explain why I and millions of others don't believe in the ToE even though it's been around for 150 years. If we have indeed 'evolved' shouldn't we readily accept the idea?

It's called denial, a well known psychological condition.

 

[Kylie]

Sorry. It didn't post.

Every part is important and necessary if a car is to be produced. Without mining metal there is no use in designing a car. Same goes for organisms. The different tissues needed don't just appear out of thin air as evolution teaches. There must be a very complex process involved. So complex that it would be deemed impossible if examined honestly. In other words, "You can't get there from here."

Yeah, you don't understand how evolution works.

Besides, if every part of the human body is important and necessary, why is it that I have the little dangly bit on the bottom of my ears, but other people don't?

 

[Kylie]

The problem is that you don't know what I'm talking about.

We know what you are talking about. You're just wrong.

Remember: just because people disagree with you, doesn't mean they don't understand what you mean.

 

[Kylie]

"This fits easily with the idea of common descent, but is not what would be expected from special creation (although it isn't completely at odds with creation either, as the creator(s) could create life in any configuration imaginable)."
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Nested_Hierarchy

Of course, if a creator designed life so it would appear to be identical with evolution, we'd have to suppose that's what they wanted us to conclude, yes? So how can you tell us to disregard the creator's wishes in this matter?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yeah, you don't understand how evolution works.

Besides, if every part of the human body is important and necessary, why is it that I have the little dangly bit on the bottom of my ears, but other people don't?

Everyone has 'earlobes'. Some are just longer than others. They also get longer with age.

 

[Speedwell]

Everyone has 'earlobes'. Some are just longer than others.

And some are shorter. That is called "random variation." So if longer earlobes became important for survival, individuals already in the population with longer earlobes would be subject to natural selection and survive to pass the tendency to longer earlobes on to their progeny--who would also exhibit longer and shorter variations in their earlobes, but the average length would be longer than the previous generation. And so on. In other words, evolution by random variation and selection.

 

[Kylie]

Everyone has 'earlobes'. Some are just longer than others. They also get longer with age.

But I know people who have no dangly bit at the bottom. I do. So what purpose does the dangly bit serve?

 

[Freodin]

God created the ability to think. Our thoughts are our own.

You mean that there exists a (divinely created) mechanism by which atoms and molecules and energy can think?
How does it work? Can you provide a detailed explanation? Or are you just content to say "It does. God did it. That is enough for me."

Well, if that is your position... fine.

But what is the difference between
"Thought is incredible complex, practically impossible... were it not for that (unspecified) divine process that makes it possible"
and
"Evolution is incredible complex, practically impossible... were it not for that (unspecified) divine process that makes it possible"?

Why is "irreducible complexity" your stumbling block in one case, but not in the other?

If thoughts are just a product of evolution then we should be able to cause (or prevent) certain thoughts to occur by adding (or removing) "certain stimuli" to (or from) the brain.

Err... you can. In practice, not precisely, because a system as complex as the human brain and consciousness is rather difficult to influence in precise ways... but generally. Drugs were already mentioned. Advertising (and the psychology behind it) is another example.

How does science account for the fact that I can deliberately think of something I've never thought of before without building up to it over millions of years (and without my head exploding). Note: I haven't yet thought about something that I have never thought of before, but I'm thinking about doing it. Explain that.

I'm not completely sure what you are aiming at with this... but I am quite certain that you cannot think of something that is completely unrelated to anything you have already thought before.

While you're at it explain why I and millions of others don't believe in the ToE even though it's been around for 150 years. If we have indeed 'evolved' shouldn't we readily accept the idea?

The human brain didn't evolve to "readily accept" certain ideas. The human brain evolved to think in a certain way. This way isn't required to always be perfect and correct. In fact, it works even better for being wrong once in a while.

 

[David_M]

Sooo, you don't think this is a simple answer?
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/complete-metamorphosis

Why do you think that a site that clearly states "Anyone is welcome to use Ask A Biologist. Keep in mind that it is intended primarily to serve grades preK-12," would give complex answers?

Or is that your level of education?

 

[David_M]

Metamorphosis.

Pub Med search for Metamorphosis, 72966 papers found, knock yourself out OWG.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=metamorphosis