Explaining speciation to a creationist

[leroy]

I guess in leroy's world, above are not wings. One wonders what leroy would call them? The problem leroy is having is thinking teleologically about certain body structures.

It is pathetic that you have to relly on stupid word games and neatpicking secondary mistakes. My post was not about “wings” it was about the concept of “objective function” I can simply change my original statement for “some wings serve for flight, that is an objective function”

All I did was to provide an example of an objective function, in order to make the concept more clear.

 

[leroy]

[Sorry, are you agreeing that the objective function of a hole is to hold rainwater?

Does a DNA molecule sitting on its own in a hole filled with rainwater have an objective function? Is is the same objective function as the same molecule sitting in the nucleus of a liver cell and the same function as the same module sitting in the nucleus of a brain cell?

You do realice that all you are doing is trying to find holes in my defintion rather that refuting the arguemnt?


Sometimes holeshave an objective function, sometimes they don´t,

But anyway I will simpel answer yes, both holes and the genetic materil that you mentioned have a function because I know this is the only way to end with your retoric alnonsence.

Yes something can have more that 1 objective function.

Feathers serv for flight, protection, intimidation, etc. this are all objective functions, featehrs also look pretty in some birds, this is a subjective function.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I guess in leroy's world, above are not wings. One wonders what leroy would call them? The problem leroy is having is thinking teleologically about certain body structures.

It is pathetic that you have to relly on stupid word games and neatpicking secondary mistakes. My post was not about “wings” it was about the concept of “objective function” I can simply change my original statement for “some wings serve for flight, that is an objective function”

If some wings serve for flight, how can their objective function be flight? Inherent in the first part of that statement is that some wings do not serve for flight. In addition, this statement makes no sense when talking about penguins. They have wings, yet they are not used for flight. However, they still seem to have an objective function (as much as a wing for flying). Beyond that, how are you able to demonstrate objective function cannot come about naturally?

Oh, and make no mistake. My post was only to show just how nonsensical the statements I quoted were.

All I did was to provide an example of an objective function, in order to make the concept more clear.

Well, it seems you have failed. Birds have wings, yet not all of them fly. Penguins still have objectively functional wings, yet do not fly. Perhaps, think through your examples next time, and you will start to see the problems your arguments make without having us pointing them out.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Greetings,

Wrong. A hole is information à la Shannon.

You're recycling Dembski's non-sensical drivel.

Kindest regards,

James

Ok, my mistake, ¿what term should I use instead of information in order to describe the concept that I personally called “information”?

As I said, leroy, you're regurgitating Dembski's "complex specified information" - which is drivel.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

Ok, my point is that dogs will never descend in to flying creatures (naturally), not even if there is selective pressure for flight.

Do you agree with this statement yes or no.

No! If there is a selective pressure for flight but no beneficial mutation(s) occur, the population is screwed and will die out. However, there are mammals that have mastered a form of flight (glide, parachute or actual flight), think about bats or flying squirrels and lemurs. Though unlikely, but what in evolution isn't, it is possible. All it takes is some problems with apoptosis during ontogenesis.

 

[leroy]

If some wings serve for flight, how can their objective function be flight? Inherent in the first part of that statement is that some wings do not serve for flight. In addition, this statement makes no sense when talking about penguins. They have wings, yet they are not used for flight. However, they still seem to have an objective function (as much as a wing for flying). Beyond that, how are you able to demonstrate objective function cannot come about naturally?

.

The problem is that you seem to believe that “objective” means universal. The fact that some wings don´t serve from flight doesn’t change the fact that some wings serve for flight, this is an objective truth.

My only “mistake” was that I should have said that some wings serve for flight

 

[SpecialFrog]

You do realice that all you are doing is trying to find holes in my defintion rather that refuting the arguemnt?

Which argument am I ignoring? This one?

Organisms can only change within the genetic information that is available in their genome, new information can´t be added by random mutations and natural selection.

That's not an argument, it's just a baseless claim. Dandan has made other arguments. Are you dandan? If so, I can continue where those arguments left off.

Mind you, those arguments were purely semantic anyway since no supporting evidence was ever presented.

 

[leroy]

As I said, leroy, you're regurgitating Dembski's "complex specified information" - which is drivel.

Kindest regards,

James

Yes, I am trying to define what debski calls complex specified information, if my definition is not clear feel free to reed his literature.
Also what I call specified complexity corresponds to what Dawkins calls complexity / complicated in the blind watch maker.

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

start reading form this sentences
I

have talked glibly of complexity, and of apparent design, as though
it were obvious what these words mean

So once you understand the concept of specified complexity or what dawkins calls complexity, we can go to the next level and try to determine if natural mechanism can create specified complexity.

 

[leroy]

That's not an argument, it's just a baseless claim

Of course is just a claim, you are in the affirmative side, you hold the burden prove, you have to show that natural mechanism can create new information in living organisms.

In other words you have to provide testable and falsifiable evidence that suggests that flightless creatures can “evolve” in to creatures that can fly, you have to prove than blind creatures can evolve in to creatures with sight etc.
When it comes to evolution, I consider myself an agnostic, I don’t ‘know if evolution is true or not, more knowledge is required in order to test and prove (or disprove) evolution.

Particularly you have to provide a step by step process that would create eyes in a blind creature, each step (mutation) has to be achievable in 1 generation and each step has to be selectively positive.
Obviously I am using the eye as an example, but you can use other complex organs like wings, ears, brains etc.
Obviously you don´t need to explain every single step, but a small sample would be good.

 

[leroy]

Ok, my point is that dogs will never descend in to flying creatures (naturally), not even if there is selective pressure for flight.

Do you agree with this statement yes or no.

No! If there is a selective pressure for flight but no beneficial mutation(s) occur, the population is screwed and will die out. However, there are mammals that have mastered a form of flight (glide, parachute or actual flight), think about bats or flying squirrels and lemurs. Though unlikely, but what in evolution isn't, it is possible. All it takes is some problems with apoptosis during ontogenesis.

Well then prove it, prove that given enough selective pressure flightless creatures would become creatures that can fly.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Yes, I am trying to define what debski calls complex specified information, if my definition is not clear feel free to reed his literature.
Also what I call specified complexity corresponds to what Dawkins calls complexity / complicated in the blind watch maker.

No it doesn't, as I have explained to you repeatedly.

"The Blind Watchmaker" defines "complex" as something that "could not have come into existence in a single act of chance." [Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 13 (in my edition)]. You also previously agreed with the book's central premise that simple rules over time can create complexity.

Also, please stop posting links to pirated eBooks.

Of course is just a claim, you are in the affirmative side, you hold the burden prove, you have to show that natural mechanism can create new information in living organisms.

No, you are making a positive claim.

Organisms can only change within the genetic information that is available in their genome, new information can´t be added by random mutations and natural selection.

You could say that you don't accept the claim that information can be added to the genome by random mutation and I could accept the burden to demonstrate that it can. But by declaring it can't you are making a positive claim.

Do you want to stop making a positive claim? If so we can talk about what evidence would convince you that mutation and selection can add "information" to the genome.

Particularly you have to provide a step by step process that would create eyes in a blind creature, each step (mutation) has to be achievable in 1 generation and each step has to be selectively positive.

The fact that you are hanging on to this misunderstanding of evolution undermines your claims of agnosticism.

Besides, do you agree that if we demonstrate that evolution take a lineage from phenotype A to phenotype B and from phenotype B to phenotype C it implies it can do so from A to C?

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

As I said, leroy, you're regurgitating Dembski's "complex specified information" - which is drivel.

Kindest regards,

James

Yes, I am trying to define what debski calls complex specified information, if my definition is not clear feel free to reed his literature.
Also what I call specified complexity corresponds to what Dawkins calls complexity / complicated in the blind watch maker.

http://terebess.hu/keletkultinfo/The_Blind_Watchmaker.pdf

start reading form this sentences
I

have talked glibly of complexity, and of apparent design, as though
it were obvious what these words mean

So once you understand the concept of specified complexity or what dawkins calls complexity, we can go to the next level and try to determine if natural mechanism can create specified complexity.

I don't need to read any of this as we dealt with it in the "OnceForgivenNowFree" (OFNF) thread.

You can find it amongst this list of topics where Dembski, Behe, ID, IC, and CSI were discussed. and debunked.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[DutchLiam84]

Well then prove it, prove that given enough selective pressure flightless creatures would become creatures that can fly.

So before I actually tell you what I think about what you just asked, a short question:
How do you expect me to prove this to you? What would you accept as proof?

 

[leroy]

"The Blind Watchmaker" defines "complex" as something that "could not have come into existence in a single act of chance." [Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 13 (in my edition)]. You also previously agreed with the book's central premise that simple rules over time can create complexity.

Also, please stop posting links to pirated eBooks.
?

That is simply wrong, since Dawkins argues that the Moon and Mountains are “simple” and none of them arose as result of a single act of chance.
BTW isn’t very arrogant from your part, when you are telling me what I meant? I am telling you, what I mean by specified complexity corresponds to what Dawkins complex,


I agree with the premise of the book, simple steps can create what can appear to be complex, however I don´t see how the “rules” of Darwinian evolution can create complexity.

I don’t see how random mutations and natural selection can create sight in a blind creatue.

I can imagine a possible world where mutations and natural selection can create what appears to be complexity, but we don’t ‘appear to live in such world

I might be wrong, I am not claiming 100% certainty, but if all you have is nice images and articles that don´t even attempt to explain how the “rules of evolution” created complexity, then my skepticism is justified.


Interesting dilemma, I personally think that there is nothing wrong in sharing intellectual property if I am not making any profit.

You could say that you don't accept the claim that information can be added to the genome by random mutation and I could accept the burden to demonstrate that it can. But by declaring it can't you are making a positive claim.

You would probably twist the term information in order to prove it, but the point is that the kind of changes that we observe are not the kind of changes that would accumulate and create complex stuff like eyes or wings.

Do you want to stop making a positive claim? If so we can talk about what evidence would convince you that mutation and selection can add "information" to the genome.

If you can provide a viable step by step path, that would create sight in a blind creature, I would accept evolution.

Each step has to be ascribable in 1 generation; most steps have to be selectively positive.

You don’t´have to explain every single step, but a small sample would work

You can change sight for any other complex system

This would convince me that evolution is true.


*You also have to prove that it is statistically probable to achieve those changes in the time estimated by the theory of evolution.

Besides, do you agree that if we demonstrate that evolution take a lineage from phenotype A to phenotype B and from phenotype B to phenotype C it implies it can do so from A to C

yes i agree

 

[leroy]

I don't need to read any of this as we dealt with it in the "OnceForgivenNowFree" (OFNF) thread.

You can find it amongst this list of topics where Dembski, Behe, ID, IC, and CSI were discussed. and debunked.

Kindest regards,

James

Well if by debunk you mean, showing a small sample of nice images then I would agree.

 

[leroy]

Well then prove it, prove that given enough selective pressure flightless creatures would become creatures that can fly.

So before I actually tell you what I think about what you just asked, a short question:
How do you expect me to prove this to you? What would you accept as proof?

If you can provide a viable step by step path, that would create flight in a flightless creature, I would accept evolution.

Each step has to be ascribable in 1 generation; most steps have to be selectively positive.

You don’t´have to explain every single step, but a small sample would work

You can change flight for any other complex system

This would convince me that evolution is true.


*You also have to prove that it is statistically probable to achieve those changes in the time estimated by the theory of evolution.

 

[DutchLiam84]

If you can provide a viable step by step path, that would create flight in a flightless creature, I would accept evolution.

Each step has to be ascribable in 1 generation; most steps have to be selectively positive.

You don’t´have to explain every single step, but a small sample would work

You can change flight for any other complex system

This would convince me that evolution is true.


*You also have to prove that it is statistically probable to achieve those changes in the time estimated by the theory of evolution.

Glad I asked. I'm calling bullshit on this. The resulting organism would still be classified as a dog, in light of your recent posts, I doubt this will convince you. Please adjust the challenge!

 

[SpecialFrog]

"The Blind Watchmaker" defines "complex" as something that "could not have come into existence in a single act of chance." [Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, p. 13 (in my edition)]. You also previously agreed with the book's central premise that simple rules over time can create complexity.

That is simply wrong, since Dawkins argues that the Moon and Mountains are “simple” and none of them arose as result of a single act of chance.

"Did not" and "could not have" are different things. Mountains (and Earth's moon) are basically heaps of rock. In fact, the moon probably was formed by a single act of chance (specifically an asteroid hitting the earth and breaking a chunk off).

BTW isn’t very arrogant from your part, when you are telling me what I meant? I am telling you, what I mean by specified complexity corresponds to what Dawkins complex,

I'm not telling you what you meant, I'm telling that you are wrong and that your definition and Dawkin's definition are not equivalent. Dawkins's definition is not the same as Dembski's "specified complexity".

I agree with the premise of the book, simple steps can create what can appear to be complex, however I don´t see how the “rules” of Darwinian evolution can create complexity.

Then you don't agree with the premise of the book because it is not talking about things that "appear to be complex" but things that actually are according to its definitions. How can something appear to be complex but not actually be complex?

I don’t see how random mutations and natural selection can create sight in a blind creatue.

Do you think it is possible for a unicellular organism to develop photoreceptor proteins? Also, do you recognize that "I don't see how X could happen" is not an argument that it can't happen?

You could say that you don't accept the claim that information can be added to the genome by random mutation and I could accept the burden to demonstrate that it can. But by declaring it can't you are making a positive claim.

You would probably twist the term information in order to prove it, but the point is that the kind of changes that we observe are not the kind of changes that would accumulate and create complex stuff like eyes or wings.

I would twist the definition of information? And you are still making positive statements about what can't happen and then claiming not to have a burden of proof.

Do you want to stop making a positive claim? If so we can talk about what evidence would convince you that mutation and selection can add "information" to the genome.

If you can provide a viable step by step path, that would create sight in a blind creature, I would accept evolution.

That's not at all what I asked. Why are you so fixated on claims about "information" if you don't actually want to talk about that?

Interesting dilemma, I personally think that there is nothing wrong in sharing intellectual property if I am not making any profit.

Then host links on your own website because various authorities disagree and there can be consequences to doing so.

So lets' back up a bit. Are there any scientific theories that you do accept? And by "accept" I mean "consider to be an essentially accurate model of some aspect of the natural world".

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I don't need to read any of this as we dealt with it in the "OnceForgivenNowFree" (OFNF) thread.

You can find it amongst this list of topics where Dembski, Behe, ID, IC, and CSI were discussed. and debunked.

Kindest regards,

James

Well if by debunk you mean, showing a small sample of nice images then I would agree.

Obviously you haven't bothered to read the posts from the links I provided.

Schneider's and Shallot's articles are quite clear:

Dembski's CSI is sophistric nonsense so he can insert "God" into the mix - nothing more.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

So before I actually tell you what I think about what you just asked, a short question:
How do you expect me to prove this to you? What would you accept as proof?

If you can provide a viable step by step path, that would create flight in a flightless creature, I would accept evolution.

Each step has to be ascribable in 1 generation; most steps have to be selectively positive.

Why and why?

You don’t´have to explain every single step, but a small sample would work

Contradicting your earlier sentence above.

You can change flight for any other complex system

This would convince me that evolution is true.


*You also have to prove that it is statistically probable to achieve those changes in the time estimated by the theory of evolution.

Look up probabilities associated with phylogenetic trees.

Kindest regards,

James