Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[DogmaHunter]

it's unfathomable that this machine "gradually evolved" because all parts of it are useless without the whole molecule.

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.

 

[whois]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase#Evolution_of_ATP_synthase

Claims of irreducible complexity almost all fall into the camp of "We already have a pretty good idea of how this evolved".

science "thinks" ATP synthase evolved in 2 or 3 ways.
thinking is a whole different animal than knowing.
we know what the structure of DNA is, we think we know how life evolved.
the first is a fact, the second has so far been unsolvable despite the best efforts of science.
as you can see, having a "pretty good idea" is worthless.

evolution is filled to the brim with "we think".

 

[florida2]

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.

How is posting a direct link to the evidence evasion?! If I was evading I wouldn't have posted a link at all!

The reference is the link. It takes you straight to the evidence. It covers three main sections - fossil evidence, evidence from molecular biology and genetics. Read those three sections if you want evidence. I'm not going to copy and paste a load of it here because that would be pointless when the evidence is a click away - the evidence will be right there on your screen, you don't even have to go scrolling through the article to find it.

Genuine question - do you really want to learn about the science?

 

[florida2]

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.

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.

 

[florida2]

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.

(Bolding mine)

Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy. Just because you can't get your head round something doesn't mean it's false.

Advanced calculus is unfathomable to me - doesn't mean it's wrong.

this is basically my entire stand when it comes to evolution.
quite simply, it is NOT what you think it is.

Oh I SEE - we all need to subscribe to your personal view of evolution and ignore everyone else. So what is evolution then?

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.

I haven't seen those posts - I would be interested in reading what you claim. None of those, however, is evidence for design.

 

[DogmaHunter]

science "thinks" ATP synthase evolved in 2 or 3 ways.
thinking is a whole different animal than knowing.

Are you saying that these "2 or 3 ways" are mere "guesses" with nothing to back it up?
If not, your objection doesn't really support your case.
If yes,.... well then.... Not really sure how to respond to that. Other then saying that science doesn't do "mere guesses" for no reason.

we know what the structure of DNA is, we think we know how life evolved.

We don't "think" we know. We just know.
Do we know everything? No. But that evolution happened is pretty much a fact.
There's no real debate about that....

Common ancestry of life is pretty much a fact.

the first is a fact, the second has so far been unsolvable despite the best efforts of science.

Perhaps if you ignore 200 years of biological research.

as you can see, having a "pretty good idea" is worthless.

lol, ok then.

evolution is filled to the brim with "we think".

So is physics, cosmology, chemistry,... and just about any other field of science.
It's called intellectual honesty.

 

[florida2]

How do you define design? Perhaps that might help us better communicate our positions?

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

Well that is fortunate as ducky clouds are not in the same category as what we are discussing.

Sometimes it feels as if it is.

Well that is great, please provide how scientifically one would objectively demonstrate deliberate design? What evidence would show deliberate design in living organisms?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[whois]

evolution in action:
the human brain.
here we have a computer that expends a few watts, weighs roughly 3 pounds, and operates at around a few hundred hertz.
and it completely eclipses the largest, fastest supercomputer man can design.

DNA.
here we have one of the densest storage mediums known to man, one that completely outstrips even blu-ray DVDs.

ATP-synthase.
here we have an energy producer that operates on the principle of hydrogen ion potential gradients.

to expect me to believe that this stuff bootstrapped itself out of a pond a goo is beyond laughable.

 

[DogmaHunter]

evolution in action:
the human brain.
here we have a computer that expends a few watts, weighs roughly 3 pounds, and operates at around a few hundred hertz.
and it completely eclipses the largest, fastest supercomputer man can design.

Incredulity.

DNA.
here we have one of the densest storage mediums known to man, one that completely outstrips even blu-ray DVDs.

And before the engine, nothing humans could make was faster then cheetah's.

ATP-synthase.
here we have an energy producer that operates on the principle of hydrogen ion potential gradients.

So.... physics and chemistry.

to expect me to believe that this stuff bootstrapped itself out of a pond a goo is beyond laughable.

Strawman.


Great.

 

[Oncedeceived]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATP_synthase#Evolution_of_ATP_synthase

Claims of irreducible complexity almost all fall into the camp of "We already have a pretty good idea of how this evolved".

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

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?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I don't think whois means he doesn't understand evolution, his assertions are not based on his knowledge of evolution but his bias towards naturalism and anti-theism colors his expertise.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

I never claimed to, you are pretending again that I am misrepresenting those people I have quoted which is not true. I have always stated that they observe the appearance of deliberate design and conclude that evolutionary processes produced that appearance.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

How sweet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I don't think whois means he doesn't understand evolution, his assertions are not based on his knowledge of evolution but his bias towards naturalism and anti-theism colors his expertise.

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.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never claimed to, you are pretending again that I am misrepresenting those people I have quoted which is not true. I have always stated that they observe the appearance of deliberate design and conclude that evolutionary processes produced that appearance.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Your explanations are bunk.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

Why?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

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