• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
*Sigh*

Looks like something doesn't necessarily mean is something.

A few pretty pictures of things aren't enough. If you want design to be a credible scientific theory you need evidence. Where's the data? Where the methodology for gathering that data? What's the proposed mechanism behind design? How can this be tested and what's the evidence for it?
Evidence is the deliberate design in the structures, systems, features and functions with a purpose in all living things.
The data is the details of how each structure, system, feature and function work and how they resemble human design.
Human design is recognized by experience of humans.
The methodology for gathering that data is using new technology that allows us to observe molecular machines in action. Other methods include using reverse engineering to understand how life forms are engineered to perform their functions.
As I just provided, science is taking designs we see in molecular machines and utilizing them in other designs. The mechanism behind design? I don't know what mean here. It can be tested by observing molecular machines and implementing them into our own designs based on their design.

Appearance is a small part of the overall design qualities that nanomachines in biological forms include.
 
Upvote 0

florida2

Well-Known Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,092
434
✟33,191.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Evidence is the deliberate design in the structures, systems, features and functions with a purpose in all living things.

Design which you still haven't shown.

The data is the details of how each structure, system, feature and function work and how they resemble human design.

You need more than 'It kinda looks like something' (I won't go into the whole cloud that looks like a duck isn't an intelligently designed cloud example again). Where's the quantifiable data? What measurements can be made to explicitly show design rather than 'looks like something'?

Human design is recognized by experience of humans.
The methodology for gathering that data is using new technology that allows us to observe molecular machines in action. Other methods include using reverse engineering to understand how life forms are engineered to perform their functions.

That's nice, but looks like something =/= is something. I still don't see how you would objectively demonstrate with data that there was deliberate design. It may not seem like it but I'm actually trying to help you see that at the moment your idea isn't scientifically sound and how to improve it (I'm happy to help those genuinely willing to learn), even though I don't accept your idea because I haven't seen any scientific evidence for it.

As I just provided, science is taking designs we see in molecular machines and utilizing them in other designs. The mechanism behind design? I don't know what mean here. It can be tested by observing molecular machines and implementing them into our own designs based on their design.

Appearance is a small part of the overall design qualities that nanomachines in biological forms include.

I don't see how using example from nature proves design - perhaps the opposite, that our human intelligent design isn't as good as evolution! By your logic, using genetic algorithms to help build things would be evidence for evolution!

By mechanism behind design I mean how this proposed deliberate design happened. How will you scientifically present this? What's the evidence for how it happened? Evolution has its mechanisms mapped out pretty well. What has your design idea got? How will you test this mechanism?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Design which you still haven't shown.
How do you define design? Perhaps that might help us better communicate our positions?



You need more than 'It kinda looks like something' (I won't go into the whole cloud that looks like a duck isn't an intelligently designed cloud example again). Where's the quantifiable data? What measurements can be made to explicitly show design rather than 'looks like something'?
Well that is fortunate as ducky clouds are not in the same category as what we are discussing.


That's nice, but looks like something =/= is something. I still don't see how you would objectively demonstrate with data that there was deliberate design. It may not seem like it but I'm actually trying to help you see that at the moment your idea isn't scientifically sound and how to improve it (I'm happy to help those genuinely willing to learn), even though I don't accept your idea because I haven't seen any scientific evidence for it.
Well that is great, please provide how scientifically one would objectively demonstrate deliberate design? What evidence would show deliberate design in living organisms?



I don't see how using example from nature proves design - perhaps the opposite, that our human intelligent design isn't as good as evolution! By your logic, using genetic algorithms to help build things would be evidence for evolution!
Or it would show that our intelligence is not as good as God's. You make the unfounded assumption that evolution produces the molecular machines alone and that is not in evidence.


By mechanism behind design I mean how this proposed deliberate design happened. How will you scientifically present this? What's the evidence for how it happened? Evolution has its mechanisms mapped out pretty well. What has your design idea got? How will you test this mechanism?
Evolution's mechanisms do not provide evidence that they produced the design we observe in living systems. What mechanism would produce such a system as the systems known to exist in the simple bacteria for instance?
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Did you even click on the link I provided? That points to a section precisely about the evidence for human evolution! I'm not going to put it all in this post because I don't want to clutter up the thread with a load of pasted text. The evidence is right there is the link. You don't even have to go and find it - the link takes you straight to the evidence. I'll even post it again for you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Evidence

Nope, I didn't. Where is the evidence in the link? Reference something. Your attitude is, here's the haystack, find the needle when the needle may not even exist.

Can YOU actually provide some semblance of evidence, some paragraph, some quote....something....anything? A link is simply more evasion from you.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
199
✟35,675.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You really don't know how science works, do you? They are hypotheses based on research up to this point. They aren't saying 'This is definitely how it happened even though I haven't got evidence for it'. They are putting forward possible ideas for further research so that these ideas can be refined and get towards what really happened.

Scientists don't know everything about the evolution of the first cells - that's why they're researching it. I have no idea what you're trying to prove or what point you are trying to make.

In other words, the link you gave does NOT have evidence, only a series of guesses and suppositions, could be's, might have been's, our 'best guess. That's not evidence based on the scientific method, you know.

This is why you refused to quote from the link, choosing instead to respond with the find the needle in the haystack response when in fact you knew, but wouldn't admit, there's no needle to find.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,523
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Once and whois and whoever else, if you think that your design idea is a worthy scientific replacement of evolution, how would it be presented scientifically?
my presence in this thread is in relation to the claim that boxcar2d mimics biological evolution.
boxcar2d does not simulate biological evolution in that it simulates none of the biomolecular processes involved.
no one has demonstrated it even APPLIES to evolution for the same reason.

as far as design goes, i can see how some people would conclude some of this stuff appears designed.
ATP synthase for example, here we have a bonefide molecular machine complete with a rotor, a stator, and a connecting shaft.
this machine use hydrogen ions falling down a potential gradient to produce energy for the cell.
this turns a rotor that transforms ADP into ATP.
it's unfathomable that this machine "gradually evolved" because all parts of it are useless without the whole molecule.
the number of genes required must also be quite large.

this is basically my entire stand when it comes to evolution.
quite simply, it is NOT what you think it is.
Look at scientific papers - they have to contain evidence to back up the arguments they are making. That evidence is presented in the form of data which has been collected. This can then be analysed and reviewed by their peers to confirm or question their conclusions. They also publish the methodology of how they collected the data which means that other scientists can do the same to corroborate or questions their results, or to conduct a similar test in different areas.
i have done exactly that.
i guess you missed the posts where i linked to papers that state MA experiments show a linearly decreasing fitness with accumulating mutations, or the paper that show gene trees and species trees rarely align, or the paper that outright states all of the tenets of the modern synthesis has been overturned or replaced.
maybe you missed the sources that say the modern synthesis is dead, or where chinese scientists are having difficulty getting published in western media.
 
Upvote 0

The Cadet

SO COOL
Apr 29, 2010
6,290
4,743
Munich
✟53,117.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
this entire argument by dawkins is a strawman.
he presents evolution as some kind of "simple minded" process that creates the illusion of design.
nothing can be further from the truth.
it's being discovered, and more is being added, that the processes of evolution is far more complex than anyone has ever imagined.
accumulating small gradual changes, the adaptive nature of evolution, both of these are in error.
transposons, epigenetics, HGT, reverse coding, the ability of DNA to repair itself, ALL of these throws a serious monkey wrench into the "simple minded" process of darwinism.


When people start to say that Professor Dawkins doesn't understand evolution, they are pretty much done.

It's like saying that Stephen Hawking doesn't understand physics.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Deliberate design observed in living things is the evidence. The fact that you don't observe it is not significant when there are a majority in mainstream science that do.

You haven't presented a single mainstream scientist that thinks "deliberate design" is observed.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Anyone else think that all this attacking the poster rather than the posts tactic is being used to close the thread so they don't have to back up their assertions?


If it gets closed, I'll personally open a new one, just for you.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
To say someone is a liar without foundation is harsh.

Not a single time have I called you a liar or dishonest without going out of my to explain why.

Ironically, I'll again call you dishonest for pretending that that isn't true.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
i for one doubt if dogmahunter is a programmer.

Watch me care.

i presented dogmahunter with a very simple program, and asked him a simple question about it that any programmer should have been able to answer.
so far he has provided no answer.

I've told that I'm not about to dive into your cryptic horrid code written in a language that debuted in 1963.

I've invited you to ask me real questions, if you have any, concerning my fields of expertise: .NET, XAML, C#, ASP .NET MVC, OO paradigms, design patterns,..

And I only answer real questions. I have nothing to "prove" to you.

I've also explained that, in any case, my credentials are irrelevant to my arguments.

I could be a garbage man and it wouldn't change anything.

i presented a base conversion program written in the same language to a mathematician on a different forum and asked him why it didn't work right, he had no problem pointing out my error, and it wasn't even the language he was familiar with, he programs in python.
so yes, i question dogahunters assertion that he is a programmer.

Question all you like.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I have never questioned his profession. I took his word for it. What I question is his claim that intelligence has nothing to do with the program and his lack of understanding of the processes of evolution. I have provided unbiased, expert opinions on both which he rejected.

The quotes you gave did not support your argument in any sense.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
in the PM he sent me, he list 5 or 6 languages that he programs in.
little does this man realize, but VBA and visual basic makes use of the very commands my program uses.


Lol

No, I'm very well aware that VB and VBA are born form old school BASIC.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think that there is something you are missing here. First of all, Dogma is very caustic towards those who do not agree with him. He calls people out and out liars.

I don't call people liars or dishonest simply for not agreeing with me.
I always explain these accusations.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
the first thing that would change is that he wouldn't have come in here and say boxcar2d simulates the processes of biological evolution.
because it doesn't.
as a matter of fact no one has proved that it even APPLIES to biological evolution.
in order to prove it does is by simulating ALL of the processes involved, and boxcar2d does not do that.

My credentials or lack thereof change nothing about the fact that GA's are algoritms inspired by natural evolution. It changes nothing about the fact that these algoritms are blind processes that produce optimised designs.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Right, there are two separate arguments in this, one is does he possess the knowledge that one would expect someone that claims to be a programmer should know and the other is that he lacks knowledge of evolution that makes his other claim false.

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.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
From your link:

The origin of cells was the most important step in the evolution of life on Earth. The birth of the cell marked the passage from pre-biotic chemistry to partitioned units resembling modern cells. The final transition to living entities that fulfill all the definitions of modern cells depended on the ability to evolve effectively by natural selection. This transition has been called the Darwinian transition.

Evidence please.

Partitioning may have begun from cell-like spheroids formed by proteinoids, which are observed by heating amino acids with phosphoric acid as a catalyst. They bear much of the basic features provided by cell membranes. Proteinoid-based protocells enclosing RNA molecules could have been the first cellular life forms on Earth.[citation needed]

Another possibility is that the shores of the ancient coastal waters may have served as a mammoth laboratory, aiding in the countless experiments necessary to bring about the first cell. Waves breaking on the shore create a delicate foam composed of bubbles. Shallow coastal waters also tend to be warmer, further concentrating the molecules throughevaporation. While bubbles made mostly of water tend to burst quickly, oily bubbles are much more stable, lending more time to the particular bubble to perform these crucial experiments. The phospholipid is a good example of a common oily compound prevalent in the prebiotic seas.[citation needed]

Phospholipids are composed of a hydrophilic head on one end, and a hydrophobic tail on the other. They possess an important characteristic for the construction of cell membranes; they can come together to form a bilayer membrane. A lipid monolayer bubble can only contain oil, and is not conducive to harbouring water-soluble organic molecules, but a lipid bilayer bubble [1] can contain water, and was a likely precursor to the modern cell membrane.[citation needed] If a protein came along that increased the integrity of its parent bubble, then that bubble had an advantage, and was placed at the top of the natural selection waiting list.[citation needed] Primitive reproduction may have occurred when the bubbles burst, releasing the results of the experiment into the surrounding medium. Once enough of the right compounds were released into the medium, the development of the first prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multi-cellular organisms could be achieved.

Where is the evidence...another possiblity, was likely, If, may have occurred are all stories and no evidence. Stories are not evidence.


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

It's called intellectual honesty
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0