Some random discussion on evolution...

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Speedwell]

I already told you that this has nothing to do with the theory of evolution and its just so stories, but with physical reality. In physical reality, interdependent systems are material. And anything material that didn't exist at the time of universe's birth can arise only by rearrangements of matter. As such rearrangements are constrained by computational capacity of the universe they are insufficient for arranging matter into system that fits an interdependent system.

A mathematical argument without math to back it up is bootless.

In other words, the number of matter arrangements that won't functionally fit an interdependent system is way above the number of matter arrangements that are generated since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago.

The total number of possible matter arrangements has no relevance, any more than the number of socks in the universe has any relevance to the probability of finding a matching pair in your sock drawer.

Also, interdependent systems must be logically linked to one another. Nature lacks causality for such linking. So it is physically impossible to arrange matter into interdependent state. You can't just wave a magic wand of just so story and make this impossibility disappear. So, nobody cares about what "the real theory of evolution" has to say about how interdependent systems arise because this theory inherently negates physical reality.

The process described by "real theory of evolution" which you don't want to talk about is exactly what provides the causality required. If you want to argue against the adequacy of the process you have to critique it directly. You can't just wave it away.

 

[Yttrium]

Labeling...

The label fits, and you are clearly incapable of removing it.

 

[Speedwell]

The label fits, and you are clearly incapable of removing it.

All he appears to be capable of doing is channeling Harun Yahya.

 

[dad]

Complexity is a mathematical concept. Any argument from complexity which does not have math backing it up is just an argument from incredulity.

But there is nothing in a bird's wing which is not present in the forelimb of the reptile from which the bird's wing evolved--the same bones, muscles, veins and arteries, etc. Only the relative shapes and proportions of these components are different. What is "too complex" about that?

Haven't seen an alligator flap like a hummingbird.

Wait...the area under the necks look somewhat similar, almost scaly looking on the bird and it is green! Guess evo tales must be true!

 

[Speedwell]

But the alligator has webbed digits which it uses to swim.

 

[pitabread]

As such rearrangements are constrained by computational capacity of the universe they are insufficient for arranging matter into system that fits an interdependent system. In other words, the number of matter arrangements that won't functionally fit an interdependent system is way above the number of matter arrangements that are generated since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago. Also, interdependent systems must be logically linked to one another. Nature lacks causality for such linking. So it is physically impossible to arrange matter into interdependent state.

This is only valid if you assume that the arrangement of matter is purely random. We already know that's not the case in the universe, since there are natural physical laws that govern how matter interacts.

Evolution is one such process; it's not strictly random. Consequently any arguments on the basis of evolution being strictly random is neither useful nor valid.

 

[Ophiolite]

No, per the OP, the point of this thread is that evolutionary theory is WRONG; therefore, articles about how it happened are off-topic.

Member Contradiction is using his misunderstanding of the origin of sex in a flawed attempt to support the thesis of the OP. Providing peer reviewed research material that corrects that misunderstanding eliminates that support for the OP's thesis and is, consequently, very much on-topic.

 

[Contradiction]

.

 

[Gene2memE]

What I find really amusing about this is that while the exact details evolution of sexual reproduction remains a mystery - as the evidence suggests it occurred at least 1.2 billion years ago - its completely immaterial.

Evolution by natural selection may never come to a complete explanation of the evolution of sexual reproduction. That does nothing to the validity of everything else that it does explain. And, it also doesn't mean there can't be an explanation under the ToE. Just that the levels of evidence available may not allow a full explanation to be formed.

The only thing that will replace the ToE in the sciences is something that better explains all the available evidence available. This will be an explanation drawn from within the methodological framework of the sciences.

What that WON'T be is some creation myth that developed in the Fertile Crescent between 3500 and 2500 years ago. Nor the version of it that pantomimes around in a stolen lab coat, to get around certain legal interpretations of the US constitution.

 

[Speedwell]

All the math you need is in the article. Everything else is pure logic. Suppose you have a PC with all the components except the CPU. What I am saying is that although CPU is just an arrangement of matter and although natural processes incessantly create all sorts of such arrangements, they cannot create one that would constitute CPU because the number of matter arrangements that won't functionally fit an interdependent system - our PC, is way above the number of matter arrangements that are generated since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago.

Now, do you need complex math to accept that? Obviously not.

What I am also saying is that even if natural processes manage to arrange matter into the required CPU, they lack causality for linking it to incomplete PC.

In biology, we have exactly the same problem.

Suppose an organism(let's call it "X") is in the process of evolving the RNA splicing system and has genes that code for all of its components except those that code for subsystem which rearranges exons into a mature messenger RNA. What I am saying is that although genes are just nucleotide arrangements and although evolution process incessantly creates all sorts of such arrangements, it cannot create one that codes for missing subsystem because the number of arrangements that won't functionally fit an interdependent system - our incomplete RNA system, is way above the number of matter arrangements that are generated since the universe's birth 15 billion years ago.

The same as in the CPU example, you don't need complex math to accept that, since only a couple of hundred nucleotides, which is insufficient even to code for an average gene, let alone RNA subsystem, can be arranged into more junk genes than there were possible matter arrangements since the universe's birth.

What I am also saying is that even if evolution process manages to arrange nucleotides into the required genes, it lacks causality for linking them to rest of the genes for RNA splicing system.

Now, what you are saying in that the "real" theory of evolution explains how interdependent systems, in our case incomplete RNA system and RNA subsystem, arise. Meaning, the "real" theory of evolution assumes that the number of arrangements that won't functionally fit an interdependent system (incomplete RNA system), is not above the number of nucleotide combinations that the gene pool of the organism X generated. It also assumes that there is some causality in nature to logically link genes of incomplete RNA system with genes of evolved RNA subsystem into a functional whole. And such assumptions are simply the denial of physical reality. So, the "real" theory of evolution explains nothing, but instead it assumes to be true what is not true at all.

Why do you assume that these subsystems of your various examples are evolved separately from and without constant contact with the systems into which they must fit?

 

[xianghua]

The only thing that will replace the ToE in the sciences is something that better explains all the available evidence available.

id can explain many things that evolution cant. thuse its the best explanation.

 

[pitabread]

id can explain many things that evolution cant. thuse its the best explanation.

Except that ID doesn't explain anything. We've been through this already.

 

[xianghua]

Except that ID doesn't explain anything. We've been through this already.

no. id is the only explanation for the existence of things like gears

(image from This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature | Science | Smithsonian)

 

[pitabread]

no. id is the only explanation for the existence of things like gears

In terms of biology, ID doesn't offer any explanations currently. This is primarily because there are no demonstrable mechanisms ID proposes for creation of such structures nor any methods in ID to detect design in biology in the first place.

In short, ID is just an empty closet. It doesn't offer anything useful to the study of biology.

 

[xianghua]

In terms of biology, ID doesn't offer any explanations currently. There is primarily because there are no demonstrable methods in ID to detect design in biology in the first place.

are you saying that we cant detect design when we see gears?

In short, ID is just an empty closet. It doesn't offer anything useful to the study of biology.

evolution doesn't offer anything useful to the study of biology either. we can study biology just fine even if evolution was wrong.

 

[Paulos23]

no. id is the only explanation for the existence of things like gears

(image from This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature | Science | Smithsonian)

No it doesn't. It just waves a wand at it and says "someone did this" without explaining anything. It is a science stopper in that it stops people from asking questions and doing more investigations.

Heck, ID doesn't even explan why the adults of that species doesn't use those gears that the youth do.

 

[xianghua]

No it doesn't. It just waves a wand at it and says "someone did this" without explaining anything. It is a science stopper in that it stops people from asking questions and doing more investigations.

so you see design in gears or not?

Heck, ID doesn't even explan why the adults of that species doesn't use those gears that the youth do

and evolution can explain it?

 

[Speedwell]

are you saying that we cant detect design when we see gears?

Not unless we can determine that they were intentionally manufactured by an intelligent agent. Just being "gears" is not enough.

evolution doesn't offer anything useful to the study of biology either. we can study biology just fine even if evolution was wrong.

At least evolution offers an explanation even if you think it is wrong. ID offers nothing of the kind.

 

[Paulos23]

so you see design in gears or not?

No, there are explanations that work better than design for those "gears".

and evolution can explain it?

Yes. The gears tend to break with to much use, so when the muscles develop the adults use those. The ones that don't end up in trouble at the first brake of the gears teeth and get eaten before they reproduce.