Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking points

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

And with regard to chloroquine resistance, your linked article was already addressed by Moran.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

You still claim that changes must be beneficial; that they must have occurred at the same time; that they must occur in one generation.

these are not mistakes

1 changes must be beneficial > if you are a selectionists then most changes leading to the evolution of the eye have to be positive

2 that they must occur in one generation this is just semantics, it depends on how you define changes or steps. random mutations do ocurre within 1 generation, there is nothing controversial about that

3 that they must have occurred at the same time if more than 1 mutation is required to produce a benefit, then yes they all mutations would have to occurre at the same time in order to be selected by natural selection. this is true by definition.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

And with regard to chloroquine resistance, your linked article was already addressed by Moran.

Kindest regards,

James

Moran, doesn't denies the main point made by Behe.

evolving from "non chloroquine resistance" to "chloroquine resistance" requires múltiple independent mutations, each individual mutations is neutral (or delaterious) you need all mutations in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection.

Moran tries to solve this by appealing to neutral mutations and genetic drift. but this "solution" inherits several problems.

1 if this "solution" represents how things usually "evolve" Darwinism (selectionism) would be wrong.

2 Moran didn't show his math, what is the probability for "neutral mutation 1" to ocurre + the probability of fixation in mutation 1 + "neutral mutation 2" to ocurre + the probability of fixation in mutation 2" +"positive mutation 3" to ocurre + the probability of fixation mutation 3.?...............to me that sounds like climbing mount improbable.

3 now pretend that you are dealing with multicellular and sexual animals with slow reproductive rates. and recalculate the probabilities in point 2.



however up to this point at least we can agree on something.

"At least sometimes you need multiple independent mutations in order to gain a benefit that would be selected by natural selection."

the only disagreement seems to be on whether if this represents a serious problem or not.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

I see you went with the option of strengthening the premise. Let's call your refined version Premise A+, which you do indeed take as a given. But I don't accept it as a given; please justify Premise A+ without any arguments from incredulity: i.., that "intelligent design" is the only way you know of and that you can't think of any other way does not prove Premise A+ anymore than being incredulous at the idea that the world is roundish because people would fall off the bottom proves the world is flat.

Premise A+ is probably true because design is the only known mechanism that would create multiple independent and codependent systems at the same time. To me that is sufficient justification.

This is analogous to "Bats (Chiroptera) are probably the only order of mammals that can fly because no one has ever seen a flying mammal from an other order.

sure you can always appeal to the possibility of finding a flying mouse in some distant jungle, but until proven otherwise it would be perfectly reasonable to conclude that bats are the only mammals that can fly. In other words the burden proof is on the guy who claims that there is a flying mouse in the same way the burden proof is on the guy who affirms that there is an other mechanism that would create multiple independent and codependent systems at the same time.


so sure I cant prove with 100% certainty that design is the only mechanism, nor that bats are the only flying mammals, but it is reasonable to grant both as statements that are probably true.

:lol:

Rationalist: Defend your premise without using a logical fallacy.

Theist: I cannot, so let me double down on this logical fallacy.

:lol:

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

[

Rationalist: Defend your premise without using a logical fallacy.

Theist: I cannot, so let me double down on this logical fallacy.

:lol:

I would ask you to explain why/where is the logical fallacy, but I know I won’t get a direct answer.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

[

Rationalist: Defend your premise without using a logical fallacy.

Theist: I cannot, so let me double down on this logical fallacy.

:lol:

I would ask you to explain why/where is the logical fallacy, but I know I won’t get a direct answer.

Do you not know how to read? Borrofburi already pointed it out before you responded:

But I don't accept it as a given; please justify Premise A+ without any arguments from incredulity: i.., that "intelligent design" is the only way you know of and that you can't think of any other way does not prove Premise A+ anymore than being incredulous at the idea that the world is roundish because people would fall off the bottom proves the world is flat.

[Emphases added.]

See how the part emphasised matches up with:

Premise A+ is probably true because design is the only known mechanism that would create multiple independent and codependent systems at the same time. To me that is sufficient justification.

Remember dandan/leroy, I am always direct, which is why you can only run.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

All I am saying is that “A” is probably the only explanation for “X” because A is the only known explanation for “X”

This is like saying: given that "virus X" is the only known virus that would cause the symptoms that John is presenting, John probably is being infected by that virus and it would be reasonable to treat John accordingly

If I were to bet I would say that you are the only member of this forum that believes that this logic is fallacious or invalid.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Your logical fallacy is 'affirming the consequent'.

The 'probably' is bullshit. If you don't know of alternatives or, more specifically how many alternatives there are, you have no basis on which to calculate any kind of probability. Only somebody who has no clue of how probabilities work could even erect such a claim.

Affirming the consequent is of the form P implies Q, Q, therefore P. In this instance, you've simply engaged in eliding all possible alternatives without consideration. Whether alternatives exist isn't predicated on you being able to think of them.

This is why affirming the consequent is a subset of the argumentum ad ignorantiam. You're ignorant of any alternatives, so you plug in the consequent as justification for your preferred P.

Logic. It's like a big, vicious dog. It will always be your friend but, if you take your eye off it, it wi9ll bite you in the ass.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Affirming the consequent is of the form P implies Q, Q, therefore P. In this instance, you've simply engaged in eliding all possible alternatives without consideration. Whether alternatives exist isn't predicated on you being able to think of them.
.

But in this case the burden proof is on the guy who affirms that there are other alternatives.

I affirm that bats are probably the only mammals that can fly, because no one has provided any example of some other mammal that can fly. Honestly would you say that this way of thinking is invalid?

When I say that something is probably true, I simply mean that there are good reasons to think that something is true, even when you are not 100% certain. (nothing to do with actual probabilities)


do you admit that there is nothing ginvalid with this way of thinking?

P implies Q, Q, therefore probably P

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

You still claim that changes must be beneficial; that they must have occurred at the same time; that they must occur in one generation.

these are not mistakes

1 changes must be beneficial > if you are a selectionists then most changes leading to the evolution of the eye have to be positive

No, they don't - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

2 that they must occur in one generation this is just semantics, it depends on how you define changes or steps. random mutations do ocurre within 1 generation, there is nothing controversial about that

But they don't have to occur in one generation - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

3 that they must have occurred at the same time if more than 1 mutation is required to produce a benefit, then yes they all mutations would have to occurre at the same time in order to be selected by natural selection. this is true by definition.

No, they don't - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

And you've already acknowledged - as HWIN has pointed out before - that at least one of these supposed "musts" is not necessary.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Dragan Glas]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Greetings,

Greetings,

And with regard to chloroquine resistance, your linked article was already addressed by Moran.

Kindest regards,

James

Moran, doesn't denies the main point made by Behe.

evolving from "non chloroquine resistance" to "chloroquine resistance" requires múltiple independent mutations, each individual mutations is neutral (or delaterious) you need all mutations in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection.

That wasn't on what Moran doesn't disagree with Behe - it was that chloroquine resistance is extremely rare.

On what he, and others, find fault is Behe's claim that the probability is 10[sup]-20[/sup].

And your summary for selection is wrong: non-lethal (neutral and/or beneficial) mutations would be passed on - they don't have to be beneficial or have an overall benefit to be selected for.

Moran tries to solve this by appealing to neutral mutations and genetic drift. but this "solution" inherits several problems.

1 if this "solution" represents how things usually "evolve" Darwinism (selectionism) would be wrong.

As has been pointed out to you by others, your understanding of evolution is out-of-date.

Selectionism and neutralism are not mutually exclusive - they are just aspects of evolution.

2 Moran didn't show his math, what is the probability for "neutral mutation 1" to ocurre + the probability of fixation in mutation 1 + "neutral mutation 2" to ocurre + the probability of fixation in mutation 2" +"positive mutation 3" to ocurre + the probability of fixation mutation 3.?...............to me that sounds like climbing mount improbable.

What he points out is that, if the detection rate is 10[sup]-20[/sup], then the actual occurrence in Nature must be higher. Hence why Behe's claimed probability is wrong.

Equally, Behe's claim that the first mutations must be deleterious is also wrong.

3 now pretend that you are dealing with multicellular and sexual animals with slow reproductive rates. and recalculate the probabilities in point 2.

All that's necessary to know is that the rate of occurrence is higher than the rate of detection.

however up to this point at least we can agree on something.

"At least sometimes you need multiple independent mutations in order to gain a benefit that would be selected by natural selection."

You're quoting this as if it comes from somewhere - would you kindly provide the source?

the only disagreement seems to be on whether if this represents a serious problem or not.

Why would it be if it's only "at least sometimes"? That implies "most times" it's not necessary.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

But in this case the burden proof is on the guy who affirms that there are other alternatives.

Nonsense, because in the case of this fallacy, it needn't be asserted that there are, only that the assertion that there aren't hasn't been justified.

As it happens, in this case, there is an alternative, and it's been elucidated in spades throughout the thread, and in the post I linked to.

do you admit that there is nothing ginvalid with this way of thinking?

P implies Q, Q, therefore probably P

This only works for abduction, meaning that it gives a hypothesis to be tested, not a conclusion. When you conclude, you've deduced, and the fallacy is committed, or you've induced, and you're stuck with the problem of induction.

All of which is by-the-by, since we have an alternative that is not only more plausible than an intelligent designer, but actualised in the real world and shown to work.

Sorry, your magic cocksucker is a fantasy, and evolution is a sufficient explanation for all instances of irreducible complexity.

Fuckwit 0 - science eleventy-squillion.

You're fucked.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

This only works for abduction, meaning that it gives a hypothesis to be tested, not a conclusion. When you conclude, you've deduced, and the fallacy is committed, or you've induced, and you're stuck with the problem of induction.



.

Again, no one is saying that premise A follows logically form the evidence, you are simply, asking a strawman. But don’t worry no one is expecting you to admit that you are wrong.

All of which is by-the-by, since we have an alternative that is not only more plausible than an intelligent designer, but actualised in the real world and shown to work

Fantastic, that would falsify premise A, just provide the data

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

No, they don't - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

By definition only beneficial changes can be selected by natural selection, (sure other mechanism like genetic drift can select neutral and negative changes)

But they don't have to occur in one generation - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

Evolution is suppose to work on the basis of building and selection upon mutations, each individual mutation occur in 1 generation, this is what I mean, we simply mean something different with “change”

No, they don't - as my posts on the previous page, along with the linked threads, explained.

For natural selection to select 2 independent and codependent mutations they have to occur at the same time.
If you what to invoke other mechanisms (like genetic drift) then these mutations can occur at different times.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

That wasn't on what Moran doesn't disagree with Behe - it was that chloroquine resistance is extremely rare.

On what he, and others, find fault is Behe's claim that the probability is 10[sup]-20[/sup].

However it is still a fact that Morlan, Behe and I agree on that at least some “beneficial steps” require more than 1 mutation in order to have a benefit that would be selected by natural selection.

Do you also agree with us?

Selectionism and neutralism are not mutually exclusive - they are just aspects of evolution

No one is saying g that these are mutually exclusive, all I am saying is that one of them has to predominate over the other.

Selectionists: Most mutations involved in the evolution of the eye where positive and selected by natural selection

Neutralists: Most mutations involved in the evolution of the eye where neutral and selected by random genetic drift.

So given these definitions, what are you a neutralist or a selectionist?


note that I am using the word “most” I am not using the word “all” and note that I am talking about the specific mutations involved in the evolution of the eye.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Again, no one is saying that premise A follows logically form the evidence, you are simply, asking a strawman. But don’t worry no one is expecting you to admit that you are wrong.

That would require that I be wrong. Not only am I not wrong, you don't possess the cognitive tools to be capable of assessing it.

Fantastic, that would falsify premise A, just provide the data

Done already, you stupid cunt. Fuck off.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

That would require that I be wrong. Not only am I not wrong, you don't possess the cognitive tools to be capable of assessing it.

you are worng

Done already, you stupid cunt. Fuck off.

No, stop lying

 

[Deleted member 619]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Just not going there with you again. You're an inveterate liar, with absolutely nothing to recommend you, near as I can tell.

Go suck the cock of your preposterous magic man.

 

[leroy]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

Just not going there with you again. You're an inveterate liar, with absolutely nothing to recommend you, near as I can tell.

Go suck the cock of your preposterous magic man.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
How can I be a liar if you don’t even believe in human choice?

As it happens, in this case, there is an alternative, and it's been elucidated in spades throughout the thread, and in the post I linked to

When are you going to admit that you simply lied?


Why don’t you quote the exact words from your childish and stupid article where you show that multiple independent and codependent systems evolved (or came in to existence without a designer) at the same time?
If you do that I would be far more humiliated than if you just insult me without any justification.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Re: Irreducible complexity and other creationist talking poi

All I am saying is that “A” is probably the only explanation for “X” because A is the only known explanation for “X”

Thus, I was correct when summing up your exchange as:

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]

:lol:

Rationalist: Defend your premise without using a logical fallacy.

Theist: I cannot, so let me double down on this logical fallacy.

:lol:

Thanks for admitting that. However, the hilarious knee jerk reactions you have to my post, then agreeing that I am right after all never fails to amuse me.

This is like saying: given that "virus X" is the only known virus that would cause the symptoms that John is presenting, John probably is being infected by that virus and it would be reasonable to treat John accordingly

Tis in an abduction, you are not making an abduction. You are saying I do not know what caused X, therefore Y did it.

If I were to bet I would say that you are the only member of this forum that believes that this logic is fallacious or invalid.

How can I be the only one when I am just paraphrasing borrofburi's response to you? Have you ever tried to sit down and think for a minute before responding to me?

In addition, right after you wrongly declare that I am the only one that would see this as a fallacy is another member agreeing it is fallacious. How wrong can one person get?

:lol: